GDayMateAZ

Enforceability of Contract - Case Law - 50 States and DC

Recommended Posts

Alabama

Steiger v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 653 So.2d 975, 978 (Ala. 1995) (No contract is formed without offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual

assent to terms essential to contract)

Pinyan v. Community Bank, 644 So.2d 919, 922 (Ala. 1994) (“asic elements of a contract are an offer and acceptance, consideration, and mutual

assent to the essential terms of the agreement”)

Mantiply v. Mantiply, No. 1031916 and 1040006, 2006 WL 1304936, *15 (Ala., May 12, 2006) (a contract must include “an offer, an acceptance,

consideration, and mutual assent to terms essential to the contract.”)

Southern United Fire Ins. Co. v. Knight 736 So.2d 582, 585 (Ala. 1999) (“For a court to treat a contract as void on the ground of uncertainty, the

contract must be so vague and indefinite in its terms that the intention of the parties cannot be fairly and reasonably inferred from them.”)

Alaska

Hall v. Add-Ventures, Ltd., 695 P.2d 1081, 1087 n.9 (Alaska 1985) (Formation of contract requires offer, encompassing all essential terms,

unequivocal acceptance by offeree of all terms of offer, consideration, and intent to be bound by offer)

Magill v. Nelbro Packing Co., 43 P.3d 140, 142 (Alaska 2001) (existence of a contract requires: “an offer encompassing all essential terms,

unequivocal acceptance by the offeree, consideration, and an intent to be bound.”)

Rego v. Decker, 482 P.2d 834, 836 (Alaska 1971) (“To be specifically enforceable, a contract 'must be reasonably definite and certain as to its terms.”)

Arizona

US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 3 P.3d 936, 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) (“An enforceable contract is formed through an

offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms.”)

Tabler v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 47 P.3d 1156, 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (“For an enforceable contract to exist, there must be an offer,

acceptance, and consideration”)

Rogus v. Lords, 804 P.2d 133, 135 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (“For enforceable contract to exist, there must be offer, acceptance, consideration, and

sufficient specification of terms so that obligations involved can be ascertained[;] … The requirement of certainty is relevant to ultimate element of

contract formation, i.e., whether parties manifested assent or intent to be bound”)

Arkansas

Jordan v. Diamond Equipment & Supply Co., 362 Ark. 142, 2005 WL 984513, *6 (Ark. April 28, 2005) (“The essential elements of a contract are:

(1) competent parties, (2) subject matter, (3) legal consideration, (4) mutual agreement, and (5) mutual obligations.”)

Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 141 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Ark Ct. App. 2004) (“The terms of a contract must be reasonably certain”)

Key v. Coryell, 185 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Ark Ct. App. 2004) (“Arkansas law recognizes that, to have a valid contract, all terms should be definitely agreed

upon,” and “must be reasonably certain”

Edited by GDayMateAZ
States in Bold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California

Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc., 141 Cal.App.4th 199, 209, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 692, 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (“Under California law, a contract will be

enforced if it is sufficiently definite (and this is a question of law) for the court to ascertain the parties' obligations and to determine whether those

obligations have been performed or breached.”)

Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc., 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (offer, acceptance and

consideration are needed for a valid contract)

Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp., 1 Cal. App.4th 613, 623; 2 Cal Rptr.2d 288, 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (under California law, contract will be enforced

if it is sufficiently definite for court to ascertain parties’ obligations and to determine whether those obligations have been performed or breached)

Colorado

Winston Fin. Group, Inc. v. Fults Management, Inc., 872 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (“If parties fail to agree to sufficiently definite terms,

there is no meeting of the minds and no valid contract exists”)

Master Palletizer Systems, Inc. v. T.S. Ragsdale Co., Inc., 725 F. Supp. 1525, 1531 (D. Colo. 1989) (“An offer and an assent manifested by act or

conduct constitute a contract.”)

City of Arvada v. Concrete Contractors, Inc., 628 P.2d 170, 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) (“An agreement not supported by consideration is invalid and

unenforceable”)

Connecticut

Russell v. Russell, 882 A.2d 98, 112 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005) (“The doctrine of consideration is fundamental in the law of contracts, the general rule

being that in the absence of consideration an executory promise is unenforceable.”)

Senco, Inc. v. Fox-Rich Textiles, Inc., 816 A.2d 654, 656 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (“To form a valid and binding contract, there must be a mutual

understanding of the terms that are definite and certain between the parties”)

Delaware

Continental Ins. Co. v. Rutledge & Co., Inc., 750 A.2d 1219, 1230 (Del. Ch. 2000) (“Where terms in an agreement are so vague that a court cannot

determine the existence of a breach, then the parties have not reached a meeting of the minds, and a Court should deny the existence of the alleged

agreement”)

In Matter of Appraisal of Enstar Corp., No. 7802, 1989 WL 11139, at *11 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 1989) (a contract requires among other things, parties

who have the capacity and authority to agree, a definite offer and acceptance, and consideration)

District of Columbia

Rosenthal v. National Produce Co., 573 A.2d 365, 370 (D.C. Ct. App. 1990) (contract must be sufficiently definite as to material terms, e.g. subject

matter, price, payment terms, quantity, and duration, so that promises and performance to be rendered by each party are reasonably certain)

Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., Inc., 462 A.2d 1140, 1142 n.3 (D.C. Ct. App. 1983) (Under contract law, to create valid settlement agreement, there

must be offer and acceptance and agreement must be supported by consideration)

Edited by GDayMateAZ
States in Bold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida

St. Joe Corp. v. McIver, 875 So.2d 375, 381 (Fla. 2004) (Under Florida law, the basic legal requirement for the formation of a contract is “offer,

acceptance, consideration and sufficient specification of essential terms”)

Georgia

Citizens Trust Bank v. White, 618 S.E.2d 9, 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (“A definite offer and complete acceptance, for consideration, create a binding

contract.”)

USA Mfg. Corp. v. Perfection-Schwank, Inc., 610 S.E.2d 600, 603 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (“A definite offer and complete acceptance, for consideration,

create a binding contract”)

Hawaii

Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 110 Hawai'i 520, 525, 135 P.3d 129, 134 (Haw. 2006) (“In order for an oral contract to be enforceable, there must

be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration”)

Clarkin v. Reimann, 638 P.2d 857, 863 (Haw Ct. App. 1981) (An agreement is not a valid and enforceable contract if it does not specify or fully

express an essential term or specify the method of ascertaining it)

Idaho

Heritage Excavation, Inc. v. Briscoe, 105 P.3d 700, 703 (Idaho 2005) (Manifestation of mutual intent to contract takes the form of an offer and

acceptance)

General Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. Genuine Parts Co., 979 P.2d 1207, 1215 (Idaho 1999) (“The general rule is that a contract is enforceable if it is

complete, definite, and certain in all its material terms, or contains provisions which are capable in themselves of being reduced to certainty.”)

Illinois

MC Baldwin Financial Co. v. DiMaggio, Rosario & Veraja, LLC, 845 N.E.2d 22, 30 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (explaining that an element of a breach of

contract claim is a valid contract, which requires “(1) offer and acceptance, (2) consideration, [and] (3) definite and certain terms”)

Halloran v. Dickerson, 679 N.E.2d 774, 782 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (“A contract, to be valid, must contain offer, acceptance, and consideration; to be

enforceable, the agreement must also be sufficiently definite so that its terms are reasonably certain and able to be determined”)

Indiana

Troutwine Estates Development Co., LLC v. Comsub Design and Engineering, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 890, 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“The existence of a

contract is established by evidence of an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a manifestation of mutual assent”).

Batchelor v. Batchelor, 853 N.E.2d 162, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“The basic requirements for a contract include offer, acceptance, consideration, and

a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties.”)

Family Video Movie Club v. Home Folks, Inc., 827 N.E.2d 582, 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration,

and manifestation of mutual assent.”)

Wenning v. Calhoun, 827 N.E.2d 627, 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“In order to be enforceable, a contract must be reasonably definite and certain in its

material terms so that the intention of the parties may be ascertained.”)

Iowa

Rick v. Sprague, 706 N.W.2d 717, 724 (Iowa 2005) (explaining that to be bound by contract, creating parties must manifest mutual assent in terms of

contract, which is usually given through offer and acceptance)

Magnusson Agency v. Pub. Entity Nat'l Company-Midwest, 560 N.W.2d 20, 26 (Iowa 1997) (“essential element of any binding contract is

consideration.”)

Gildea v. Kapenis, 402 N.W. 2d 457, 459 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (a contract must be definite and certain as to its terms to be binding)

Edited by GDayMateAZ
States in Bold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kansas

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Addleman, 750 P.2d 1037, 1038 (1988)(“An accord and satisfaction is reached only by the offer of sufficient

consideration and an acceptance of that offer in a meeting of the minds that the original obligation is thus extinguished.”)

Lessley v. Hardage, 727 P. 2d 440, 446 (Kan. 1986) (in order for an agreement to be binding it must be sufficiently definite as to its terms and

requirements to enable a court to determine what acts are to be performed and when performance is complete, and the court must be able to fix

definitely the legal liability of the parties)

Kentucky

Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 94 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Ky.App.2002) (contracts generally require “offer and acceptance, full and

complete terms, and consideration.”)

Cali-Ken Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Miller, 815 F. Supp. 216, 217 (W.D. Ky. 1993) (under Kentucky law, an enforceable contract exists when parties

exchange a valid offer and acceptance)

Cuppy v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 378 S.W. 2d 629, 632 (Ky,. 1964) (every contract requires mutual assent and consideration)

Mitts & Pettit, Inc. v. Burger Brewing Co., 317 S.W. 2d 865, 866 (Ky. 1958) (terms of contract must be complete and sufficiently definite to enable

court to determine measure of damages in event of breach)

Louisiana

Imperial Chemicals Ltd. v. PKB Scania (USA), Inc., 929 So.2d 84, 90 (La. Ct. App. 2006) writ denied, 930 So.2d 31 (La. 2006) (“A contract is

formed by consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance.”)

J. Caldarera & Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition Dist., 750 So.2d 284, 288 (La. Ct. App. 1999)(“There are four necessary elements for a

valid contract: capacity, consent, object and lawful cause. In other words, the parties must have the capacity to contract and give their consent freely for

a certain object, and the contract must have a lawful purpose. Both parties must be bound in order for there to be a contract.”)

Villars v. Edwards, 412, So. 2d 122, 124 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 415 So. 2d 945 (La. 1982) (it is essential to formation of a contract that nature

and extent of the obligation therein be certain)

Eustis v. Moons, 367 So. 2d 1343, 1346-1347 (La. Ct. App. 1970), writ denied, 370 So. 2d 577 (La. 1979) (court could not find required

consideration to support a binding contract)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maine

In re Estate of McPhee, 904 A.2d 401, 402 (Me. 2006) (“A contract is legally enforceable if it is founded upon a meeting of the minds, consideration,

and mutuality of obligations.”)

Stenzel v. Dell, Inc., 2005 ME 37, 870 A.2d 133, 140 (Me.2005)(“n order to be legally binding, a contract must be sufficiently definite in its terms

so that a court can understand what the promisor undertook [and its] material terms… must be agreed upon before a court can enforce [it].”)

Maryland

Maslow v. Vanguri, 896 A.2d 408, 421 (Md. App.2006)(“A contract is formed when an unrevoked offer made by one person is accepted by another”

and “an agreement that omits an important term, or is otherwise too vague or indefinite with respect to essential terms, is not enforceable”)

Beall v. Beall, 434 A. 2d 1015, 1018 (Md. 1981) (in order for a contract to be binding, it must be supported by consideration)

Massachusetts

Vasconcellos v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 853 N.E.2d 571, 574 (Mass.App.Ct.2006)(”An oral contract, like any other, requires an offer, acceptance, and

consideration.”)

Coldwell Banker/Hunneman v. Shostack, 818 N.E.2d 1079, 1083 (Mass.App.Ct.2004)(“It is axiomatic that to create an enforceable contract, there

must be agreement between the parties on the material terms of that contract, and the parties must have a present intention to be bound by that

agreement”)

Community Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motocycle Associates, Inc., 692 N.E.2d 964, 976 (Mass.App.Ct.1998)(“Before an enforceable agreement arises

‘[a]ll [its] essential terms … must be definite and certain so that the intention of the parties may be discovered, the nature and extent of their

obligations ascertained, and their rights determined.’”)

Cygan v. Megathlin, 96 N.E. 2d 702, 703 (Mass. 1951) (all essential terms of a contract must be definite and certain so that the intention of the parties

may be discovered, the nature and extent of their obligations ascertained, and their rights determined)

Michigan

46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County, 719 N.W.2d 553, 568 (Mich.2006)(“An essential element in a contract claim is legal consideration.”)

Uniproprop, Inc, v. Morganroth, 678 NW2d 638, 640 (Mich.App.2004) (“Two of the essential elements of a valid contract are consideration and a

meeting of the minds.”)

Opdyke Investment v. Norris Grain, 320 N.W.2d 836, 838 (Mich.App.1982) (“Like any other contract, a contract to make a contract can fail for

indefiniteness if the trier of fact finds that it does not include an essential term to be incorporated into the final contract.”)

Siporin v. Adler, 111 N.W. 2d 848, 850 (Mich. 1961) (the interpretation of written contracts is a matter for the court to determine when the parties

have assented to definite terms and incorporated them in formal document)

Minnesota

Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 772, 782 (Minn.App.2006) (“The formation of a contract requires communication

of a specific and definite offer, acceptance, and consideration.”)

Mississippi

Rotenberry v. Hooker, 864 So.2d 266, 270 (Miss.2003)(“The elements of a valid contract are: (1) two or more contracting parties, (2) consideration,

(3) an agreement that is sufficiently definite, (4) parties with legal capacity to make a contract, (5) mutual assent, and (6) no legal prohibition

precluding contract formation.”)

Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Center, Inc., 772 So.2d 1023, 1029 n.3 (Miss.2000)(“n order to establish a contract, there need only be an offer,

acceptance, and consideration.”)

Fradella v. Seaberry, 2006 WL 924037, *2 (Miss.Ct.App., April 11, 2006)(Enforceable contract must contain an offer, acceptance, and consideration.)

Service Elec. Supply Co., Inc. v. Hazlehurst Lumber Co., Inc., 932 So.2d 863, 869 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (“An enforceable contract requires an offer,

acceptance of the offer, and consideration.”)

Missouri

Luebbert v. Simmons, 98 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Mo.App. W.D.2003)(Basic elements of contract are offer, acceptance and consideration.)

Olathe Millwork Co. v. Dulin, 189 S.W.3d 199, 205 (Mo.App. W.D.,2006)(“The essential terms of the contract must be certain or capable of certain

interpretation. That is, the terms of agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give it an exact meaning. No contract is formed when

the terms of agreement are unduly uncertain and indefinite.”)

Montana

Bishop v. Hendrickson, 695 P.2d 1313, 1315 (Mont.1985)(“terms of the contract are reasonably certain.”)

Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., 804 P.2d 359, 363 (Mont.1990)(Essential elements of contract are identifiable parties capable of

contracting, parties' consent, lawful object, and consideration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nebraska

Nebraska Nutrients, Inc. v. Shepherd, 626 N.W.2d 472, 498 (Neb.2001) (“To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there

must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract.”)

Cheloha v. Cheloha, 582 N.W.2d 291, 297 (Neb.1998) (“A court of equity will not enforce a contract unless it is complete and certain in all its

essential elements.”)

Nevada

May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Nev.2005.)(“Basic contract principles require, for an enforceable contract, an offer and acceptance, meeting

of the minds, and consideration… A valid contract cannot exist when material terms are lacking or are insufficiently certain and definite.”)

New Hampshire

Behrens v. S.P. Const. Co., Inc., 904 A.2d 676, 680 (N.H.2006) (“Offer, acceptance, and consideration are essential to contract formation…

Moreover, the terms of a contract must be definite in order to be enforceable.”)

New Jersey

Weichert Co. Realtor's v. Ryan, 608 A.2d 280, 284 (1992)(“A contract arises from offer and acceptance, and must be sufficiently definite "that the

performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.")

Seaview Orthopaedics ex rel. Fleming v. National Healthcare Resources, Inc., 841 A.2d 917, 921 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2004)(“It is well-settled that

contracts are not enforceable in the absence of consideration, i.e., ‘both sides must “get something” out of the exchange.’”)

New Mexico

Nance v. L.J. Dolloff Associates, Inc., 126 P.3d 1215, 1220 (N.M.App. 2005) (“For a contract to be legally enforceable there must be an offer,

acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent.”)

McNeill v. Rice Engineering and Operating, Inc., 70 P.3d 794, 802 (N.M.App.,2003)(“Although a written contract need not detail every term, essential

terms must be expressly provided or necessarily implied by construction for a court to find the contract unambiguous on its face”).

New York

Beitner v. Becker, 2006 WL 3237792, *1 (N.Y.A.D. November 08, 2006)(“All contracts must be supported by consideration, consisting of a benefit

to the promisor or a detriment to the promise.”)

Mellen & Jayne, Inc. v. AIM Promotions, Inc., 823 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y.A.D. 2006)(“ The doctrine of definiteness means that a court cannot enforce a

contract unless it can determine what the parties agreed to do… In other words, there can be no legally enforceable contract unless the written

agreement is reasonably certain or specific in its material terms“)

Robison v. Sweeney, 301 A.D.2d 815, 817 (N.Y.A.D. 2003)(“To create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently

definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms… Generally, courts look to the basic elements of the offer

and the acceptance to determine whether there is an objective meeting of the minds sufficient to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract”)

North Carolina

Cap Care Group, Inc. v. McDonald, 561 S.E.2d 578, 582 (N.C.App.2002)(“An enforceable agreement requires an offer, acceptance and

consideration.”)

Connor v. Harless 626 S.E.2d 755, 757,758 (N.C.App.,2006.)(“It is essential to the formation of any contract that there be mutual assent of both

parties to the terms of the agreement so as to establish a meeting of the minds… Further, “[m]utual assent is normally established by an offer by one

party and an acceptance by the other, which offer and acceptance are essential elements of a contract…. “a contract to enter into a future contract must

specify all its material and essential terms, and leave none to be agreed upon as a result of future negotiations.”)

North Dakota

Matter of Estate of Hill, 492 N.W.2d 288, 293 (N.D.1992)(“[A] contract requires ‘an offer, and acceptance of that offer, and mutual acceptance and

understanding of the offeror and offeree as to the terms of the legally enforceable obligation thus incurred.’… Implicit in these requirements is the

notion that to be a valid and enforceable contract, it must be reasonably definite and certain in its terms so that a court may require it to be performed.

The contract must be definite enough so as to ascertain what is required of the parties as courts will not uphold agreements which are indefinite and

uncertain as to the parties' obligations.”)

Harrington v. Harrington, 365 N.W.2d 552, 555 (N.D.1985)(“When no consideration is present a valid contract is not formed and this is a legal issue

which may be determined by a court”).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio

Nilavar v. Osborn, 711 N.E.2d 726, 732 (Ohio.App.1998)(“To prove the existence of a contract, the plaintiff must show the elements of mutual assent

(generally, offer and acceptance) and consideration; the plaintiff must also show that there was a "meeting of the minds" and that the contract was

definite as to its essential terms.”)

Oklahoma

Horton Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Robinson, 824 P.2d 397, 400 (Okl. App. Ct. 1991) (“[V]alid and enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, and

consideration.”).

Firstul Mortg. Co. v. Osko, 604 P.2d 150, 153 (Okl. App. Ct. 1979)(“it is necessary that the parties agree so that a court can determine what each is

expected to do in order that the court may determine the existence of a breach and formulate a remedy.”)

Oregon

Klimek v. Perisich, 371 P.2d 956, 960 (Or.1962)(“To constitute a contract such as here present, there must be an offer and an acceptance… An offer

must be certain so that upon an unqualified acceptance the nature and extent of the obligations of each party are fixed and may be determined with

reasonable certainty.”)

McGrath v. Electrical Const. Co., 364 P.2d 604, 609 (Or. 1961)(“A promise not supported by consideration is not enforceable.”)

Pennsylvania

Yarnall v. Almy, 703 A.2d 535, 538 (Pa.Super.1997)(“In order to form contract, there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration or mutual meeting

of minds.”)

In re Estate of Hall, 731 A.2d 617, 622 (Pa.Super.1999)(“An agreement is a valid and binding contract if: the parties have manifested an intent to be

bound by the agreement's terms; the terms are sufficiently definite; and there was consideration.”)

Rhode Island

Weaver v. American Power Conversion Corp., 863 A.2d 193, 198 (R.I. 2004) (“Under traditional contract theory, an offer and acceptance are

indispensable to contract formation, and without such assent a contract is not formed.”)

Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co., 438 A.2d 1091, 1094 (R.I.1982) (“Contracts implied in fact require the element of consideration to support them as is

required in express contracts.”)

Lamoureux v. Burrillville Racing a$$’n, 161 A. 2d 213, 215 (R.I. 1960) (the essential elements of a contract are competent parties, subject matter, a

legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation)

South Carolina

Armstrong v. Collins, 621 S.E.2d 368, 377 (S.C.App.2005)(“The required elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, and valuable

consideration.”)

Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (S.C.App.1997)(“an agreement that omits material terms may be determined to be

unenforceable for indefiniteness”).

South Dakota

Kroupa v. Kroupa, 574 N.W.2d 208, 214 (S.D.1998)(“So long as there is a clear offer and acceptance of the compromise and a meeting of the minds

on the essential terms of the agreement, oral settlement agreements made in the presence of the trial court are enforceable as binding contracts.”)

Meyer v. South Dakota Dept. of Social Services, 581 N.W.2d 151, 155 (S.D. 1998) (“The general rule is that both mortgages and contracts must be

supported by valid and sufficient consideration.”)

Weitzel v. Sioux Valley Heart Partners, 714 N.W.2d 884, 892 (S.D.2006)(“An agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable a court to give it an

exact meaning.”)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennessee

Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 407 (Tenn. 2002)(“To be enforceable, an implied-in-fact contract must be supported

by mutual assent, consideration, and lawful purpose.”)

River Park Hosp., Inc. v. BlueCross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 43, 57 (Tenn.App.2002)(In order to be enforceable, express contracts

and contracts implied in fact must be sufficiently definite and must be based on consideration.

Texas

Harco Energy, Inc. v. Re-Entry People, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 389, 392 (Tex.App.Ct. 2000) ("For a contract to exist, there must be an offer, an acceptance,

and valid consideration.").

Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C., 2006 WL 2567672, *7 (Tex.App.Ct. Sept. 07, 2006)(“To be enforceable, the contract must be sufficiently certain to

enable a court to determine the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties.”)

Utah

Neiderhauser Builders & Dev. Corp. v. Campbell, 824 P.2d 1193, 1197-1198 (Utah App.1992)(“Generally the elements of a contract must be present

in an accord and satisfaction, including proper subject matter, offer and acceptance, competent parties, and consideration.”)

DCM Inv. Corp. v. Pinecrest Inv. Co., 34 P.3d 785, 789 (Ut.2001)(“For an offer to be one that would create a valid and binding contract, its terms

must be definite and unambiguous”).

Vermont

Starr Farm Beach Campowners Asso'n v. Boylan, 811 A.2d 155, 158 (Vt. App. 2002)(“An enforceable contract must demonstrate a meeting of the

minds of the parties: an offer by one of them and an acceptance of such offer by the other.”)

Summits 7, Inc. v. Kelly, 886 A.2d 365, 369 (Vt. App. 2005)(“adequate independent consideration” is required to support an agreement.)

Sisters & Brothers Inv. Group. v. Vermont Nat. Bank, 773 A.2d 264, 268 (Vt. 2001)(We agree that the terms of a contract must be “reasonably

certain.”)

Virginia

Virginia School of Arts, Inc. v. Eichelbaum, 493 S.E.2d 510, 512 (Va. 1997)(“A charitable subscription is governed by law of contracts and must be

supported by offer, acceptance, and consideration.”)

Vilseck v. Vilseck, 612 S.E.2d 746, 749 (Va.App.,2005)(“if an ambiguity renders the alleged agreement too indefinite-even after the consideration of

extrinsic evidence-for the court to determine the parties' intent, the contract cannot be enforced due to the absence of any discernable meeting of the

minds.”)

Washington

Citizens for Des Moines, Inc. v. Petersen, 106 P.3d 290, 293 (Wash.App.2005)(“For a contract to exist, there must be an offer, acceptance, and

consideration”).

Christiano v. Spokane County Health Dist., 969 P.2d 1078, 1081 (Wash.App.1998)(“Contracts require offer, acceptance and consideration.”)

Hansen v. Transworld Wireless TV-Spokane, Inc., 361, 44 P.3d 929, 938 (Wash.App.2002)(A contract must be “definite enough so that when it is

coupled with the acceptance it can be determined, with at least a reasonable degree of certainty, what the nature and extent of the obligation is which

the proposer has assumed.”)

West Virginia

Wellington Power Corp. v. CNA Sur. Corp., 614 S.E.2d 680, 684 (W.Va.2005)(“The fundamentals of a legal ‘contract’ are competent parties, legal

subject-matter, valuable consideration, and mutual assent; there can be no contract, if there is one of these essential elements upon which the minds of

the parties are not in agreement.”)

Wisconsin

NBZ, Inc. v. Pilarski, 520 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Wis.App.1994)(An enforceable contract requires an offer, acceptance and consideration).

Piaskoski & Associates v. Ricciardi, 686 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Wis.App.2004)(“A valid contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration.”)

Wyoming

Finch v. Farmers Co-op. Oil Co. of Sheridan, 109 P.3d 537, 541 (Wyo.2005)(“The necessary elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, and

consideration.”)

Carroll v. Bergen, 57 P.3d 1209, 1215 (Wyo.2002)(“The party who alleges that a contract exists bears the burden of proving the terms of that

contract… It is well established that courts do not have the power to supply indefinite terms.”)

Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 75 P.3d 640, 653 (Wyo.,2003)(“The court may not supply the missing terms to create an agreement”)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.