Contracts
Brief
Joseph A. Lonergan v. Albert Scolnick
Procedural History:
- Court found in favor of Defendant
- Plaintiff Appeals
- Affirmed
Facts Chronologically:
- March 1952 (Defendant/Seller)
- Defendant places an ad in the LA paper reading: “Joshua Tree vic. 40 acres,…need cash, will sacrifice”
- APPELLATE COURT OPNION: This was a mere request for an offer.
- Defendant places an ad in the LA paper reading: “Joshua Tree vic. 40 acres,…need cash, will sacrifice”
- March 26, 1952 (Defendant/Seller)
- Defendant writes in response to an inquiry about the land to the plaintiff who lived in New York, briefly describing the property, giving directions as to how to get there, stating that his rock-bottom price was $2,500 cash, and further stating that ‘this is a form letter’.
- APPELLATE COURT OPINION: Contains no definite offer, clearly states it is a form letter. Merely gives further particulars, in clarification of the advertisement, and tells the plaintiff how to locate the property if interested.
- Defendant writes in response to an inquiry about the land to the plaintiff who lived in New York, briefly describing the property, giving directions as to how to get there, stating that his rock-bottom price was $2,500 cash, and further stating that ‘this is a form letter’.
- April 7, 1952 (Plaintiff/Buyer)
- Plaintiff writes to defendant saying that he was not sure he ahd found the property, asking for its legal description, asking whether the land was all level or whether it included certain jutting rock hills, and suggesting a certain bank as escrow agent ‘should I desire to purchase the land’.
- April 8, 1952 (Defendant/Seller)
- Defendant writes to plaintiff “from your description you have found the property, the bank is OK for escrow agent, the land was fairly level, giving the legal description, then saying ‘if you are really interested, you will have to decide fast, as I expect to have a buyer in the next week or so”.
- TRIAL JUDGE OPINION: When considered with the previous correspondence, constituted an offer of sale which offer was, however, qualified and conditioned upon prompt acceptance by the plaintiff, the plaintiff delayed 1 week before accepting, and since the plaintiff was aware of the necessity of promptly communicating his acceptance to the defendant, his delay was not the prompt action required by the terms of the offer.
- APPELLATE COURT OPINION: Added nothing in the way of a definite offer. Merely answered some questions asked by the plaintiff, and stated that if the plaintiff was really interested he would have to act fast. The statement that he intended to sell in the next week or so indicated that the defendant intended to sell first come first serve.
- Defendant writes to plaintiff “from your description you have found the property, the bank is OK for escrow agent, the land was fairly level, giving the legal description, then saying ‘if you are really interested, you will have to decide fast, as I expect to have a buyer in the next week or so”.
- April 12, 1952 (Defendant/Seller)
- Defendant sells the land to a third party for $2,500.
- April 14, 1952 (Plaintiff/Buyer)
- Plaintiff receives defendant’s letter which was sent on April 8, 1952.
- April 15, 1952 (Plaintiff/Buyer)
- Plaintiff writes to defendant thanking him for his letter “confirming that I was on the right land, stating that he would immediately proceed to have the escrow opened and would deposit $2,500 therein in conformity with your offer and asking the defendant to forward the deed with his instructions to the escrow agent.
- April 17, 1952 (Plaintiff/Buyer)
- Plaintiff started an escrow and placed in the hands of the escrow agent $100.
Issue:
- Was a valid contract entered into?
Holding:
- No. Affirmed.
Reasoning:
- Incorporated within fact pattern.
Posted in 
Tags: 
