Interway, Inc. v. Alagna

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that if a court finds a letter of intent’s language to be ambiguous, “parol evidence is admissible to explain and ascertain what the parties intended.” (quotation marks omitted)
• no contract exists where unambiguous letter of intent states “our purchase is subject to a definitive Purchase and Sale Contract to be executed by the parties”
• no contract exists where unambiguous letter of intent states \our purchase is subject to a definitive Purchase and Sale Contract to be executed by the parties\
• “[I]f the trial court classifies the writings as unambiguous, then the intention of the parties must necessarily be determined solely from the language used in the document.”
• where the court stated that, if the parties to a contract construe the execution of a formal agreement as a condition precedent, then no contract arises until that formal agreement is executed by both parties
• where the court stated that, if the parties to a contract construe the execution of a formal agreement as a condition precedent, then no contract arises until that formal agreement is executed by both parties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).