Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 10

Pan Handle Realty, LLC v. Olins
Appellate Court of Connecticut, 140 Conn.App. 556, 59 A.3d 842 (2013).
FACTS Pan Handle Realty, LLC, built a luxury home in Westport, Connecticut. Robert Olins proposed to lease the property. Pan Handle forwarded a draft lease to Olins. On January 17, 2009, the parties met and negotiated changes to the terms.
After the final draft of the lease was signed, Olins gave Pan Handle a check for $38,000, which was the amount of the annual rent. Olins said that he planned to move into the home on January 28. Before that date, according to the lease, Pan Handle removed all of the furnishings. On January 27, the bank informed Pan Handle that Olins had stopped payment on the rental check. Olins then told Pan Handle that he was "unable to pursue any further interest in the property." Pan Handle made substantial efforts to find a new tenant for the property but was unable to do so. Consequently, Pan Handle filed a lawsuit in a Connecticut state court against Olins, alleging that he had breached the lease. From a decision in Pan Handle's favor-and an award of damages in the amount of $138,000 in unpaid rent-Olins appealed.
ISSUE When Olins and Pan Handle signed the lease, did each party intend to be bound by the agreement?
DECISION Yes. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
REASON The objective fact, as supported by the evidence, was that the parties intended to be bound by the lease when they signed it. That Olins had a different intent or a later "change of heart" was not persuasive. Olins contended that because material terms were still being negotiated there was no "meeting of the minds," which is required to form a contract. The reviewing court noted that, "If there has been a misunderstanding between the parties, or a misapprehension by one of the parties or both so that their minds have never met, no contract has been entered into by them and the court will not make for them a contract which they themselves did not make."
Here, though, Olins and a representative of Pan Handle had made revisions and signed a lease. Olins had tendered a check, on which he noted payment for a one-year lease of the premises. "The defendant's apparent unilateral change of heart regarding the lease agreement does not negate the parties' prior meeting of the minds that occurred at the time the lease was executed." Thus, "The lease agreement was a valid and binding contract which the defendant" had breached.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Environment Consideration How did the objective theory of contracts affect the results in this case?