Store Properties v. Neal - Issue Whether there was a offer...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Store Properties v. Neal 72 Cal.App.2d 112 (1945) Fact: Operative Facts: The case revolved around a letter sent, which was a letter of intent to lease. The first 7 paragraphs of this shows many of the terms and deposits. Paragraph 8 states “Terms and conditions of the lease not covered by this proposal shall be subject to the approval of both parties.” And Paragraph 9 states “If this offer is accepted by the lessee of said property and a lease is prepared and mutually agreed upon, the lessee shall, upon execution and delivery of said lease, pay the lessor the said property…”
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Issue: Whether there was a offer and acceptance of a lease, aka a contract Rule: Letters of Intent has two functions, (1) to contractually bind the parties to obligations (2) parties intended to document their progress. Rational: Paragraph 8 shows that the party intended to continue on negotiations. Paragraph 9 states that a lease had to be signed, for the lease to take effect. Holding: This was a letter of intent as to document their progress, and not itself a lease. There was no meeting of the minds. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online