Contracts Case Brief # 4

Title and Citation: Lonergan v. Scolnick, 276 P.2d 8 (1954)

Identities of Parties: (P) Lonergan was interested in a land the (D)
Scolnick was selling.
Procedure History: (P) brought the suit of action to compel specific
performance or, to recover damages. Trial court ruled in favor of the
(D) so (P) appealed to the California District Court of Appeal
Facts: (D) placed an ad in a newspaper, indicating that he wanted to
sell property, the (P) inquired about the property. The (D) responded
via letter describing the property, giving directions to the property and
indicated the lowest price he would accept (he stated this was a form
letter). (P) wrote to the (D) requesting a legal description of the
property and to suggest an escrow if he decides to purchase the land.
(D) wrote back with a legal description on the property, approval of the
escrow agent and telling the (P) he had to act fast if he wanted the
property since he was expecting a buyer in the next week or so. (D)
sold the land to a third party, after the land was already sold the (P)
received (D) last letter and told the (D) that he would soon open
escrow.
Trial judge rules that April 8th letter in light of prior
communication is an offer by the (D)
Narrow issue that the Appellant court found:
o Were Scolnick letters sufficient to warrant a offer (with
prior communications)
Court said no, lonergan should have known that no
offer was made
Issue: (A) Did the (P) and (D) enter into a contract?
Holding and Rule: (B) No, the court found that in order for a contract
to be formed there must be a manifestation of contractual intent and it
must be clear and show that the parties intention to create a binding
agree. This was not the case here. Manifestation of contractual intent
is determined by the objective person standard of a reasonable person
standing in the shoes of the offeree. There can be no contract unless
there has been a meeting of the minds and the parties have mutually
agreed upon some specific thing. This was not met here either.
Courts Reasoning: The court found that (D) did not make an offer,
and that the communication between (P) and (D) was an invitation for
offers. (D) clearly told the (P) that there were potential buyers and at

no time agrees to hold the property for the (P). The Ad in the paper
was a mere request for an offer, letter of March 26 was not an offer
because it contained information on how the (P) could locate the
property. Letter of April 8, answered questions that the (P) asked and
told the (P) he had to act quickly if interested in the property.
Judgment and Order: Trial court decision affirmed.