Faught v. Budlong

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the second and third comment c factors support finding the existence of an oral contract when the parties were sophisticated business persons engaged in long, complex negotiations
• concluding the fourth and fifth comment c factors support a legal conclusion that no contract existed because the deal involved a large sum of money ($130,000) and the contract involved many details
• determining that the length of negotiations, complexity of issues, amount of money involved, number of proposal and counter proposals, and general distrust amongst the parties indicated that no reasonable person would find that an oral contract existed
• concluding, as a matter of law based on the applicable factors, that a written agreement was required and that “[t]he parties’ prior dealings were simply preliminary negotiations and expressions of terms to be formally memorialized in a written agreement executed by the parties”
• affirming judgment n.o.v. where proof of numerous proposals and counterproposals signaled parties’ intent to memorialize negotiations by written agreement
• finding “[t]he parties’ prior dealings were simply preliminary negotiations and expressions of terms to be formally memorialized in a written agreement executed by the parties,” but no binding agreement was reached in any event because the parties were still negotiating terms

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).