DELTA ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MCDEVITT & STREET COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that whether a contract was formed was a question of fact, not resolvable by summary judgment.
Delta submitted a proposal to McDevitt & Street, who sent a contract form for Delta to sign and return. Delta's president indicated they contemplated …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent To Be Bound cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was prematurely terminated by summary judgment. Delta submitted to McDevitt & Street, a general contractor, a proposal for work as an electrical subcontractor on an apartment project. McDevitt & Street sent a letter to Delta enclosing a contract form. “If you find the enclosed in order,” they wrote, “please affix your signature and seal on Page 5 thereof and return all four copies to this office. .' . . As soon as the enclosed has been returned to us and processed, we will return an executed copy of the contract to you for your files.”
Whether this constituted an offer, which Delta accepted, or whether the contract was not to be regarded as complete until executed by both parties, is a question of fact not resolved by the depositions and affidavits on file. The trial judge apparently relied on the deposition of Delta’s president, who replied, “Certainly”, to the *227question: “At all times did you contemplate that both Delta Electrical and Me-Devitt & Street would sign a written con- , ,
A distinction must be drawn between the intention to memorialize in writing an existing and binding agreement and an intention that no agreement come into being until both parties have executed a signed document.1 The factual issue here is virtually the same as that in Housing Authority of Fort Pierce v. Foster,2 and should proceed as that case did.
Reversed and remanded.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ent), review denied, 482 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1986); Citizens Bank v. Harlie Lynch Constr. Co., 426 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (finding no intent to be bound until written instrument signed); Delta Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 262 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (reversing summary judgment where trial court failed to distinguish between intention to memorialize existing agreement and intention no agreement exist until execution of document); see also In re SeaEscape Cruises, Ltd., 17…
-
D.F.S. Constr. Co. v. Couse Corp., 437 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…e complaint with prejudice as the allegations and attached documents, taken together, were sufficient to state a cause of action. See Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589, 33 So. 303 (1902); Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Company, 262 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); and Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 383 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). DOWNEY, LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hinote v. Brigman, 44 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1902)
- Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Fla. Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1910)
- The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Fort Pierce v. Foster, 237 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)