This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Lonergan v. Scolnick: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=Court of Appeal of California | |||
|citation=276 P.2d 8 | |||
|date=November 23, 1954 | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
}} | |||
{{Court opinion part | |||
|opinion_type=majority | |||
|opinion_order=1 | |||
|written_by=Charles R. Barnard | |||
|joined_by=Griffin* Mussell | |||
}} | |||
'''Facts''': Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place. On April 8, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly. He then sold the land to someone else on April 12. A couple of days later, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant and offered to buy the land. | '''Facts''': Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place. On April 8, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly. He then sold the land to someone else on April 12. A couple of days later, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant and offered to buy the land. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 22: | ||
'''Reasons''': | '''Reasons''': | ||
*Judging from the Defendant's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer. | * Judging from the Defendant's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer. | ||
*The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem" | * The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem" | ||
'''Judgment''': Affirmed. | '''Judgment''': Affirmed. | ||
[ | ===Link=== | ||
* [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/129/179.html Caset text at Justia] | |||
Revision as of 22:42, January 7, 2020
| Lonergan v. Scolnick | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of California |
|---|---|
| Citation | 276 P.2d 8 |
| Date decided | November 23, 1954 |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1"
!majority
|written by Charles R. Barnard
joined by Griffin, Mussell
|-
Facts: Scolnick put an ad in the paper offering to sell a plot of land. Lonergan responded to the ad, and a series of letters between the two regarding the property and the sale thereof took place. On April 8, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff and said that he better hurry and make an offer, because he was expecting to sell the land shortly. He then sold the land to someone else on April 12. A couple of days later, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant and offered to buy the land.
Procedural History: Trial court found for the defendant.
Issue: Was there a contract?
Arguments: Plaintiff said that a contract already existed.
Holding: No contract had been formed.
Reasons:
- Judging from the Defendant's language, he intended to sell the land to the first-comer. The ad in the paper was only a request for an offer.
- The lack of specificity in the ad and the "over subscription problem"
Judgment: Affirmed.
