Lonergan v. Scolnick
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| 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).
