Otto Contracting Co. v. S. Schinella & Son, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “whether a contractual commitment has been undertaken is ultimately a question of the intention of the parties”
• \whether a contractual commitment has been undertaken is ultimately a question of the intention of the parties\
• trial court’s factual findings must be upheld unless they are ‘‘clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record’’
• ‘‘whether a contractual commitment has been undertaken is ultimately a question of the intention of the parties’’
• “ ‘A contractor whose expressions induce another to understand and to act in reliance on that understanding may be held responsible therefor.’ 3 Corbin, Contracts § 538, p. 57 (1960).”
• Since plaintiff refused to work until plaintiff received. personal commitment from the defendant owner, court rejected defendant owner’s argument that defendant owner’s signature only represented his acquiescence to an approval clause in the contract.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).