Andersen Investments, LLC v. Factory Card Outlet of America, Ltd.
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61698, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 2009 WL 1904395 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A preliminary agreement, such as a Letter of Intent, that expressly conditions a binding obligation upon the execution of a future, formal contract does not create an enforceable written or oral contract. Furthermore, a claim for promissory estoppel will fail if the alleged promise is contradicted by written disclaimers requiring a final, executed agreement before any party is bound.
Facts:
- On November 1, 2007, Andersen Investments, LLC (Andersen) and Factory Card Outlet of America, Ltd. (FCOA) entered into a Letter of Intent (LOI) for a commercial lease.
- The LOI stated that the lease was 'subject to... the negotiation and the execution of a mutually acceptable lease between [FCOA] and [Andersen].'
- During subsequent lease negotiations, all operative drafts of the lease agreement contained a clause stating the lease 'shall not be binding until fully executed by both parties.'
- FCOA's real estate director, Bob Kranz, sent multiple emails encouraging Andersen to expedite construction to meet a target opening date for the 'graduation selling season.'
- An internal FCOA email from Kranz to a vice president described the lease as 'completely negotiated and execution-ready' and noted that Andersen had already commenced construction.
- Relying on the ongoing negotiations and communications from FCOA, Andersen began construction on the property, incurring approximately $232,000 in costs.
- Before a final lease was signed, FCOA was acquired by another company.
- On March 12, 2008, FCOA informed Andersen that it would not enter into the lease because its new parent company would not approve the new store.
Procedural Posture:
- Andersen Investments, LLC sued Factory Card Outlet of America, Ltd. (FCOA) in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, a state trial court.
- The lawsuit asserted claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
- FCOA removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, a federal trial court.
- In federal court, FCOA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of Andersen's claims as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an enforceable contract, either written or oral, or a claim for promissory estoppel exist when parties execute a Letter of Intent and exchange draft leases that both expressly state an agreement is not binding until a final lease is formally executed by both parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Gritzner, J.
No. An enforceable contract does not exist, nor does a claim for promissory estoppel, when the parties' written communications clearly and consistently manifest an intent not to be bound until a final agreement is formally signed. For the breach of contract claim, the Letter of Intent (LOI) was merely an 'agreement to agree' and not a binding written contract because it contained a condition precedent—the execution of a final lease—that never occurred. Similarly, no oral contract was formed because the explicit language in both the LOI and all draft leases created an 'umbrella' requirement for a signed writing. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 27, the court found this to be a 'comment b' case, where parties intend that no obligation shall exist until the agreement is reduced to a final written form. For the promissory estoppel claim, the court found that FCOA's statements urging construction and expressing readiness to sign did not constitute a 'clear and definite promise' required under Iowa law. These communications were part of ongoing negotiations and were superseded by the explicit written condition that no agreement was binding until executed, making Andersen's reliance on them unreasonable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal weight of clauses in preliminary agreements that expressly delay binding obligations until a final document is executed. It illustrates that courts will strictly enforce such 'no-binding-obligation-until-execution' language, even when one party has begun performance and incurred significant costs in reliance on negotiations. The decision serves as a strong precedent protecting parties in complex commercial negotiations, allowing them to discuss terms and encourage preparatory actions without being prematurely bound to a contract. It also highlights the high threshold for promissory estoppel claims in the context of sophisticated commercial dealings where parties have clearly defined the conditions for contract formation in writing.
