Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Case: Empro Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Ball-Co Manufacturing, Inc. (1989 US)
[pp.427-431]
Reasoning: Empro made clear in the letter of intent (because of the conditions,
and subject-to statements), that it was free to walk until the formal agreement
was drawn up. There was no option that would commit Ball-Co. The letter of intent
did no more than set the stage for negotiations on details. Empro claims reliance
expenditures, but these are only the usual associated with preliminary
negotiations.
RULE: Objective manifestation of intent needed, “subject to” clause may qualify
as an option but not magic words – must look at the whole letter to find intent to
be bound
This was an agreement to agree, not an agreement fully agreed upon on its
essential terms. Here, neither party can unjustifiably withdraw, but neither can
be compelled to perform, if after good faith bargaining, an agreement cannot be
reached. So, this is a contract to bargain.
Notes