Arnold Palmer Golf Co. v. Fuqua Industries, Inc.
541 F.2d 584 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether parties intended to be bound by a memorandum of intent is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for a judge, when the memorandum contains ambiguous terms and there is extrinsic evidence of an intent to be bound.
Facts:
- Arnold Palmer Golf Company (Palmer) sought to acquire its own manufacturing facilities to aid its growth.
- In January 1969, representatives from Palmer and Fuqua Industries, Inc. (Fuqua) began meeting to discuss a potential business combination.
- As part of the ongoing negotiations, Fuqua acquired Fernquest and Johnson, a golf club manufacturer, in November 1969 with Palmer's approval.
- After further discussions, the parties signed a six-page document titled "Memorandum of Intent" detailing the terms of Fuqua acquiring 25% of Palmer stock in exchange for the Fernquest and Johnson stock and $700,000.
- The Memorandum stated it was to "confirm the general understanding which has been reached," but also contained a condition that the parties' obligations were subject to the preparation of a "definitive agreement... in form and content satisfactory to both parties."
- After the Memorandum was signed, Fuqua issued a press release stating that it and Palmer "have agreed to cooperate in an enterprise."
- In February 1970, Fuqua's Chairman of the Board decided not to proceed with the transaction and informed Palmer that the deal was terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Arnold Palmer Golf Company filed a breach of contract action against Fuqua Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court.
- Fuqua filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the Memorandum of Intent was not an enforceable contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fuqua.
- Palmer, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Fuqua is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment appropriate where a 'Memorandum of Intent' contains ambiguous language regarding the parties' intent to be bound, including both detailed terms suggesting a final agreement and conditions requiring the future preparation of a 'satisfactory' definitive agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - McCree, Circuit Judge
No. Summary judgment is not appropriate because whether parties intended a memorandum of intent to be a binding contract is a factual question that must be resolved by the trier of fact when the document's language is ambiguous. The Memorandum of Intent here contains language suggesting both that an agreement had been reached (e.g., "Fuqua will transfer," "a general understanding has been reached") and that no binding obligation yet existed (e.g., conditioning the deal on a future "definitive agreement" satisfactory to both parties). This ambiguity, coupled with extrinsic evidence like Fuqua's press release announcing an agreement, creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding the parties' intent. Therefore, the district court erred in deciding this question as a matter of law instead of allowing it to proceed to trial for a factual determination.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a preliminary agreement, such as a Memorandum of Intent or Letter of Intent, is not automatically unenforceable simply because it contemplates a future, more formal agreement. The decision emphasizes that the parties' intent to be bound is the central inquiry, which is a question of fact. This ruling makes it more difficult for a party to escape obligations under a detailed preliminary agreement by arguing it was merely an 'agreement to agree.' It encourages courts to look beyond the four corners of the document to extrinsic evidence, such as party conduct and communications, thereby increasing the likelihood that such disputes will survive summary judgment and proceed to a full trial.
