Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff corresponded with Defendant numerous times about a specific piece of property. After some exchanges, the Defendant sold the land to a third party. Plaintiff claims there was a binding contract already in place.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and mutually agreed upon some specific thing. This is usually evidence by one party making an offer which is accepted by the other party.
Issue. Is there a valid contract?
Held. No. Affirmed.
The court talks about the Fixed Purpose Test: “If from a promise, or manifestation of intention, or from the circumstances existing at the time, the person to whom the promise or manifestation is addressed knows or has reason to know that the person making it does not intend it as an expression of his fixed purpose until he has given a further expression of assent, he has not made an offer.” There can be no contract unless the minds of the parties have met and mutually agreed upon some specific thing. This is usually evidenced by one party making an offer, which is accepted by the other party.
Discussion. The court wants to strike a balance and make sure that just because someone places an advertisement or has correspondence about a potential sale, it does not bind that person into a legally enforceable contract to sell that item. The offeror has the power to accept.