Ken Hood Construction Co. v. Pacific Coast Construction, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that actions can imply acceptance of an agreement, “notwithstanding that a written contract had not been executed”
• concluding that the parties had a contract and thus, not addressing quantum meruit claim because quantum meruit and breach of contract were mutually exclusive theories
• “Manifestation of mutual assent ordinarily occurs through an offer or proposal by one party followed by acceptance of the other party.”
• “Because the parties already had agreed to the essential terms of the agreement, [discussions regarding suggested changes to the contract terms] are more accurately characterized as proposed modifications to the contract.”
• where parties manifested an intent to be bound by oral agreement, which contained all the material terms of the contract, agreement was an enforceable Tribune Type I agreement, even though parties anticipated reducing their agreement to writing but never actually did

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).