Evarts v. Forte

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that writing failed to demonstrate that parties ever came to a “first understanding” over the property to be sold
• recognizing that “[v]agueness, indefiniteness and uncertainty of expression as to any of the essential terms of an agreement have been held to preclude the creation of an enforceable contract”
• noting “basic tenet of the law of contracts” that there must be “mutual manifestations of assent or a ‘meeting of the minds’ on all essential particulars” to agreement
• “It is never enough that the parties think they have made a contract; they must express their subjective intent in a manner that is capable of understanding.”
• “[I]f an instrument that purports to be a complete contract does not contain, or erroneously contains, the substantial terms of a complete contract, it is ineffective as a legal document.”
• “There can be no doubt that in the present case the change in closing date requested by the appellants was, in effect, a counter-offer requiring the appellee’s assent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).