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
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=November 23, 1954 | |date=November 23, 1954 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|appealed_from= | |||
|overturned= | |||
|partially_overturned= | |||
|reaffirmed= | |||
|questioned= | |||
|criticized= | |||
|distinguished= | |||
|cited= | |||
|followed= | |||
|related= | |||
|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. | |||
|issues=Was there a contract? | |||
|arguments=Plaintiff said that a contract already existed. | |||
|holding=No contract had been formed. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed. | |||
|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" (elevated interest for a newly available offering causes demand to outstrip supply). | |||
|rule= | |||
|comments= | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/129/179.html | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Court opinion part | |Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=majority | |opinion_type=majority | ||
|written_by=Charles R. Barnard | |written_by=Charles R. Barnard | ||
|joined_by=Griffin* Mussell | |joined_by=Griffin* Mussell | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
Lonergan v. Scolnick | |
Court | Court of Appeal of California |
---|---|
Citation | 276 P.2d 8 |
Date decided | November 23, 1954 |
Case Opinions | |
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.
Issues
Was there a contract?
Arguments
Plaintiff said that a contract already existed.
Holding
No contract had been formed.
Judgment
Affirmed.
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" (elevated interest for a newly available offering causes demand to outstrip supply).