Owen v. Tunison, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 131 Me. 42, 1932

NAME:
Owen v. Tunison, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 131 Me. 42, 1932

FACTS:
· Δ, a resident of Newark N.J., was the owner of the Bradley block and lot
· 10/23/1929 – π wrote a letter asking if Δ would sell him his “store property which is located on Main St. in Buckspot, Me. running from Montgomery’s Drug Store on one corner to a Grocery Store on the other, for the sum of $6,000.”
· 12/5/1929 – π received Δ’s letter dated 11/12/1929 which stated that “Because of improvements”…which cost “several thousand dollars”…he could not sell it unless he were to receive $16,000.00 cash.
· π replied “accept your offer for Bradley block Bucksport Terms sixteen thousand cash send deed to Eastern Trust and Banking Co Bangor Maine Please acknowledge.”
· Four days later Δ notified π that he did not wish to sell the property

PROCEDURE:
None stated in opinion

ISSUE:
Can the Δ’s letter to the π be construed as a contract and therefore Δ was in breach of contract to the π?

HOLDING:
No. The Δ’s letter, while may have been written with the intent to open negotiations, is not an offer to sell and therefore since no contract was formed, there was no breach of contract.

REASONING:
· There can [be] no contract for the sale of property desired, no meeting of the minds of the owner and prospective purchaser, unless there was an offer or proposal of sale
· It cannot be successfully argued that Δ made any offer or proposal of sale
· In a recent case the words, “would not consider less than half” is held “not to be taken as an outright offer to sell for one-half.” –Sellers v. Warren, 166 Me. 350
· Courts have held “He [Δ] does not say, ‘I offer to sell to you.’ The language used is general…and is not an offer by which he may be bound, if accepted, by any or all of the persons addressed.” –Nebraska Seed Co. v. Harsh, 98 Neb. 89

DISPOSITION:
Judgment for Δ

DISSENT:
None

EVALUATION:
Using only the rules and reasoning stated above and applying it to the question raised in this case, the court was correct in holding that the letter was not intended to be construed as an offer to sell because the language used was general, and did not meet the required “meeting of the minds” between the buyer and seller.

SYNTHESIS:
N/A