[subject] [last name of the first listed author]
Free text:
''Arnold Palmer Golf Co. v. Fuqua Indus., Inc.'', 541 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1976). '''Facts''': Parties signed a memorandum of intent but never formalized the very detailed memo into a later contract. '''Issue''': Did the parties intend to be bound by the terms within the memo of intent? '''Holding''': Yes, the later contract document was merely a memorialization of the contract made at the time of the memo of intent. The wording of the memo of intent shows agreement. '''Rule''': Six factors to determine if parties intended to be bound (each factor is given different weight): #whether this class of contract usually is in writing #whether it needs a formal writing for its full expression #few or many details required #*If contract lacks detail - usually written contract needed #*If there are many detail in oral contract -- may be sufficient #whether amount involved is large or small #*larger amount usually needs written contract #whether the type of agreement is common or unusual #*More unusual need a written contract #whether a written contract is coming #*If so, then need a written contract [[Category:Cases:Contracts]]