Mendel Kern, Inc. v. Workshop, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• where language of agreement east in future tense, district court’s conclusion that letter was “memorandum of future contractual intent” was not error
• letter of intent to enter into lease was not binding promise because it merely expressed \intention to do something\ at future date
• language of agreement cast in future tense indicates no present intent to be bound
• fact that parties contemplated additional document “is cogent evidence that they did not intend that the letter of intent, even when accepted by [the plaintiff], would constitute a binding agreement”
• “an intention to do something is not necessarily a promise to do it”
• “an intention to do something is not necessarily a promise to do it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).