Lonergan v. Scolnick – Ca Brief Summary
Summary of Lonergan v. Scolnick, 129 Cal. App. 2d 179, 276 P.2d 8 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954).
Facts
Scolnick (D) sought to ll certain real property and placed the following ad in a Los Angeles paper: ‘Joshua Tree vic. 40 acres, . . . need cash, will sacrifice.’ Lonergan (P) answered the ad and Scolnick wrote to him describing the property and providing directions, and stated that his rock-bottom price was $2,500 cash.
Lonergan wrote to Scolnick to ask for details regarding the preci location of the real estate and to recommend an escrow agent “should I desire to purcha the land.” Scolnick replied the next day and told him to decide quickly becau he expected to have a buyer within a week. Scolnick sold the property four days later. Two days later the plaintiff received Scolnick’s letter and replied the next day that he accepted the offer.
Lonergan brought this lawsuit alleging that the defendant had breached a contract to ll th
e land. The plaintiff claimed that the land was worth $6,081 and sought the difference between that and the asking price of $2,500. Defendant denied that a contract had formed. The trial court favor of Scolnick and Lonergan appealed.
Issue
∙ Must there be a manifestation of contractual intent in order to create an enforceable contract?
Holding and Rule
∙ Yes. There must be a manifestation of contractual intent and it must be unequivocal and show that the parties intended to create a binding agreement.
There can be no contract unless there has been a meeting of the minds and the parties have mutually agreed upon some specific thing. This is usually evidenced by one party making an offer which is accepted by the other party. Section 25 of the Restatement of the Law on Contracts reads: ‘If from a promi, or manifestation of intention, or from the c
ircumstances existing at the time, the person to whom the promi or manifestation is addresd knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend it as an expression of his fixed purpo until he has given a further expression of asnt, he has not made an offer.’
The court held that the language ud by the defendant in his letters indicated that they were not intended as an expression of fixed purpo to make a definite offer. The advertiment in the paper was a mere request for an offer. The letter of March 26 contained no definite offer becau it merely gave further particulars and told the plaintiff how to locate the property if interested. The letter of April 8 answered some questions asked by the plaintiff, and stated that if he were really interested he would have to act soon. That the defendant expected a buyer in a short time indicated that he intended to ll to the first-comer. Lonergan was not being given a right to act within a reasonable time after receiving the letter.
Disposition
Judgment for Scolnick affirmed.
Notes
Manifestation of contractual intent is determined by the objective person standard of a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the offeree.
Lonergan v. Scolnick
Facts:
∙ D posted an ad in a newspaper about some land he needed to ll urgently. P saw the ad and inquired about it.
∙ D nt P information about the property, along with directions to get to it. D stated that the rock-bottom price was $2500; D also made sure that the letter purported itlf to be a "form letter".
∙ P wrote to D asking for more info on the land and suggesting an escrow rvice "should
[he] desire to purcha the land".
∙ D wrote back giving the legal description of the land and saying that if P was really interested, he should decide quickly since D expected to have a buyer in a week or so.
∙ D sold the property to a third party.
∙ Three days later, P opened an escrow account and nt D a letter telling him that he was purchasing the land.
∙ Upon finding out that the land had already been sold, P sued D for breach of contract.
Procedural History:
∙ Lower court found for D, said that the D made an offer which was qualified and conditioned upon prompt acceptance by P. Since P delayed, contract was not entered upon.
∙ CA COA affirmed, found for D, no contract, but for totally different reasons than the lowe
r court.
Issues:
∙ Where is the line between contract negotiation and contract formation?
∙ Does an advertiment qualify as an offer?
Holding/Rule:
∙ A contract is officially formed when one party makes an offer and the other party asnts to the offer.
∙ "If…the person to whom the promi is addresd knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend it as an expression of his fixed purpo until he has given a further expression of asnt, he has not made an offer."
∙ An advertiment is a mere request for an offer.
