Lonergan v. Scolnick: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
m (Updated timeline for new template)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Court of Appeal of California
|court=California Court of Appeal
|citation=276 P.2d 8
|citation=276 P.2d 8
|date=November 23, 1954
|date=November 23, 1954
|subject=Contracts
|subject=Contracts
|appealed_from=
|other_subjects=Property
|case_treatment=No
|facts=*"Scolnick" = defendant = owner of a 40-acre plot of land = seller
|overturned=
*"Lonergan" = potential buyer
|partially_overturned=
*In March 1952, Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. The ad didn't list a price.
|reaffirmed=
*Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place.  
|questioned=
*Scolnick told Lonergan that his minimum price was $2,500.
|criticized=
*On April 8th 1952, the Defendant (Scolnick) wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly.
|distinguished=
*Scolnick then sold the land to someone else on April 12.
|cited=
*A couple of days later, the Lonergan wrote to the Scolnick & offered to buy the land.
|followed=
{{Timeline|Scolnick writes to Lonergan|April 8th 1952|April 12th 1952|Scolnick sells the land to someone else for $2,500|Lonergan agrees to buy the land at $2,500|April 15th 1952|April 17th 1952|Lonergan opens an escrow account}}
|related=
|facts=Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place. On April 8, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly. He then sold the land to someone else on April 12. A couple of days later, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant and offered to buy the land.
|procedural_history=Trial court found for the defendant.
|procedural_history=Trial court found for the defendant.
|issues=Was there a contract?
|issues=Was there a contract?
|arguments=Plaintiff said that a contract already existed.
|arguments=Plaintiff said that a contract already existed.
|holding=No contract had been formed.
|holding=The April 8th 1952 letter of Scolnick didn't constitute an offer.
 
Judge Barnard: Contract formation requires a meeting of the minds upon mutually agreeable terms.
 
No contract had been formed.
|judgment=Affirmed.
|judgment=Affirmed.
|reasons=* Judging from the Defendant's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer.
|reasons=*Judging from the Scolnick's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer.
* The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem" (elevated interest for a newly available offering causes demand to outstrip supply).
*The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem" (elevated interest for a newly available offering causes demand to outstrip supply).
|rule=
|comments=
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/129/179.html
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/129/179.html
|case_text_source=Justia
|case_text_source=Justia
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lonergan-v-scolnick
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=J6N6UA1OdlQ
}}
}}
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part

Latest revision as of 04:18, December 16, 2023

Lonergan v. Scolnick
Court California Court of Appeal
Citation 276 P.2d 8
Date decided November 23, 1954
Case Opinions
majority written by Charles R. Barnard
joined by Griffin, Mussell

Facts

  • "Scolnick" = defendant = owner of a 40-acre plot of land = seller
  • "Lonergan" = potential buyer
  • In March 1952, Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. The ad didn't list a price.
  • Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place.
  • Scolnick told Lonergan that his minimum price was $2,500.
  • On April 8th 1952, the Defendant (Scolnick) wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly.
  • Scolnick then sold the land to someone else on April 12.
  • A couple of days later, the Lonergan wrote to the Scolnick & offered to buy the land.
April 8th 1952
Scolnick writes to Lonergan
April 12th 1952
Scolnick sells the land to someone else for $2,500
April 15th 1952
Lonergan agrees to buy the land at $2,500
April 17th 1952
Lonergan opens an escrow account




Procedural History

Trial court found for the defendant.

Issues

Was there a contract?

Arguments

Plaintiff said that a contract already existed.

Holding

The April 8th 1952 letter of Scolnick didn't constitute an offer.

Judge Barnard: Contract formation requires a meeting of the minds upon mutually agreeable terms.

No contract had been formed.

Judgment

Affirmed.

Reasons

  • Judging from the Scolnick's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer.
  • The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem" (elevated interest for a newly available offering causes demand to outstrip supply).

Resources


Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Lonergan_v._Scolnick&oldid=48723"