Halstead v Murray - settlement. D objected on the ground...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 296 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Halstead v. Murray Ct. of App. N.H. (1988) J. Johnson Halstead(P) and Murray (D) owned adjacent property. Murray wanted to build a building near prop line. Dispute ensued over building. Murray offered to sell his property to Halstead and had his attorney draw up an agreement. Halstead’s attorney wrote an acceptance letter and additional guidelines. Murray’s attorney responded with an agreement that did not have D’s (Murray) signature. P signed and executed the agreement – then D. decided to raise the price, and P filed suit to enforce the
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: settlement. D objected on the ground that the writings did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds b/c there was no signature from the D. The trial ct found for D and P appeals. Whether an attorney can bind his client without written authorization. Yes. Client and attorney are treated as one unit in this case, so the actions of the clients attorney were sufficient to contractually bind the D to an agreement. If the attorney has the permission of the client to proceed with negotiations, the actions of the attorney are binding to the client....
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

Halstead v Murray - settlement. D objected on the ground...

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