Adjustrite Systems, Inc., Stuart J. Orr, and Lu Elliott v. Gab Business Services, Inc. And Intermodal Technical Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that three of four factors indicate parties did not intend to be bound until formal documents were executed and therefore summary judgment was appropriate
• holding that an agreement was not a Type I agreement because it was “expressly contingent” on the execution of future contracts
• holding that the agreement was clearly of the type that would ordinarily be committed to writing “in view of the size of the transaction, the nature of the assets being purchased, and the length of the employment contracts”
• stating that a Type II agreement does not commit the parties to their ultimate contractual objective but rather to the obligation to negotiate open issues in good faith
• finding that the court must examine the size, scope and length of the transaction to determine whether it is of the type ordinarily committed to writing
• explaining that under New York law, \the language of [a preliminary] agreement\ is \the most important\ factor in determining whether it is binding (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).