Cannel Home v. Grossman

Cannel Home v. Grossman - prospective tenant, pursuant to a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 244 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Channel Home Centers v. Grossman US Ct. of App. 3 rd Cir. J. Becker P (Channel) & D (Grossman) had an agreement that D would lease a mall space to P. P would have the assurance that the spot would be taken off the market and D had the benefit of using P = s agreement to obtain financing. D later leased to someone else, and P sued for breach of contract. Trial ct. found that there was no enforceable agreement and ruled for D. P. appeals. Ct. of appeals Court held that the agreement was enforceable because 1) both parties manifested an intention to be bound by its terms, 2)the terms were definite enough to be enforced, and 3) there was consideration on both sides. The court stated that the letter of intent constituted a binding contract, therefore P was entitled to restitution, reliance and expectation interests. Specific performance would not have been appropriate because money damages were appropriate. Whether under Pennsylvania law, a property owner’s promise to a
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: prospective tenant, pursuant to a detailed letter of intent, to negotiate with prospective tenant and to withdraw the lease premises from the marketplace during the negotiation, can bind the owner for a reasonable period of time where the prospective tenant has expanded significant sums of $ in connection with lease negotiations and preparation and where there is evidence that a letter of intent was of significant value to the property owner. Yes. Channels execution and tender of the letter of intent conferred a bargain for benefit on Grossman which was valid consideration for Grossmans return promise to negotiate in good faith. Also found that sufficient specificity existed to form a valid contract. An agreement to negotiate in good faith is considered a contract when: 1) both parties manifest an intention to be bound by its terms 2) the terms are definite enough to be enforced 3) and there is consideration for both parties....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Page1 / 2

Cannel Home v. Grossman - prospective tenant, pursuant to a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online