Malone Const. Co., Inc. v. Westbrook
Decision Date | 05 December 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 47434,47434,1 |
Citation | 127 Ga.App. 709,194 S.E.2d 619 |
Parties | MALONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. William P. WESTBROOK et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas Wm. Malone, Leonard H. Gilberg, Albany, for appellant.
Langstaff, Campbell & Plowden, Robert B. Langstaff, Albany, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Unless an agreement is reached as to all terms and conditions and nothing is left to future negotiations, a contract to enter into a contract in the future is of no effect. Wells v. H. W. Lay & Co., 78 Ga.App. 364, 50 S.E.2d 755; Russell v. City of Atlanta, 103 Ga.App. 365, 119 S.E.2d 143. To have a valid contract, there must be a meeting of minds and mutuality, and agreement must ordinarily be expressed plainly and simply enough to show what the parties agreed upon. West v. Downer, 218 Ga. 235, 127 S.E.2d 359. These rules control this case is which the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants in a suit for the alleged breach of contract to construct a shopping center. The alleged contract which was attached to the complaint consisted of a letter dated March 23, 1971, from plaintiff to defendants, and to which defendants affixed their signatures signifying their assent. It stated in part: On May 31, 1971, another letter from plaintiff to one of the defendants advised that plaintiff's estimated costs for one of the stores to be located in the shopping center had increased by nearly $100,000. In July, 1971 plaintiff wrote an additional letter stating that 'we revised our proposal to you from the cost-plus proposal to a firm proposal of $414,247.' These letters all show nothing more than a continuing negotiation process with at most an agreement to contract in the future when and if all terms and conditions have been assented to by the parties. The alleged contract among other things shows that there was no agreement as to the cost. The last letter clearly evidences that plaintiff was in the process of making 'proposals' which never ripened into a binding contract. The undisputed facts show that defendants were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crystal Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. AMEC Foster Wheeler Programs, Inc.
...to demonstrate that the contractor assented to the terms set forth in the subcontractor's earlier bid); Malone Const. Co. v. Westbrook, 127 Ga. App. 709, 709, 194 S.E.2d 619 (1972) (holding that communications between the parties attached to the complaint "show[ed] nothing more than a conti......
-
Sierra Associates, Ltd. v. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago
...157 Ga.App. 879, 881, 278 S.E.2d 750; accord: Wells v. H.W. Lay & Co., 78 Ga.App. 364, 367, 50 S.E.2d 755; Malone Constr. Co. v. Westbrook, 127 Ga.App. 709, 194 S.E.2d 619; John Bleakley Ford v. Estes, 164 Ga.App. 547(1), 298 S.E.2d 270. " 'An agreement to reach an agreement is a contradict......
-
Vitner v. Funk, 73348
...and enforceable contract were lacking because there was no meeting of the minds and no mutuality, citing Malone Constr. Co. v. Westbrook, 127 Ga.App. 709, 194 S.E.2d 619 (1972); Clayton McLendon v. McCarthy, 125 Ga.App. 76, 186 S.E.2d 452 (1971). There is ample evidence to sustain a finding......
-
Moore v. Bank of Fitzgerald
...negotiations, a contract to enter into a contract in the future [i.e., a loan] is of no effect. (Cits.)' Malone Const. Co. v. Westbrook, 127 Ga.App. 709, 194 S.E.2d 619 (1972)." Hartrampf v. Citizens & Southern Realty Investors, 157 Ga.App. 879, 881, 278 S.E.2d 750 The trial court was corre......