Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)

Citation: Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
Parent Document: Fortin v. Wilensky, 142 Me. 372 (1947)
Jurisdiction: Maine (state)
Effective Date: 1947-05-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5122679/fortin-v-wilensky/ ↗

Full Text

966 chars

*378The result would probably have been the same however if the evidence had authorized the justice to find a consideration, because details were not agreed upon, and an agreement to make an agreement is not always enforcible. As our court has said, “The proof must show the terms of the contract clearly, definitely and conclusively . . . the agreement must be concluded, unambiguous, and proved to the satisfaction of the court.” Bennett v. Dyer, 89 Me., 17, 22, 35 A., 1004, 1005; Woodbury v. Gardner, 77 Me., 68, 71. The authorities recognize that an oral agreement to execute a written lease may be specifically enforced, in a proper case, where it has been partly performed; but mere negotiations looking toward a written lease, that is to be agreed upon, have no binding force on either party. Pomeroy’s Specific Performance of Contracts (3d ed.) 350, Par. 136; 58 Corpus Juris, 990, Pars. 178-227; 49 Am. Jur. “Specific Performance” 142, Pars. 121, 122, 124.

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text