Brady v. State
965 P.2d 1, 1998 WL 699762, 1998 Alas. LEXIS 154 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government entity's promise to 'entertain' an application and subsequent statements of preparedness to enter a contract do not constitute an unequivocal acceptance required to form a binding contract or a promise sufficient for promissory estoppel. Furthermore, a party who voluntarily renders services during negotiations to gain a business advantage cannot recover the value of those services under a theory of unjust enrichment if the negotiations fail.
Facts:
- Amidst a spruce bark beetle epidemic in Alaska, state official Daniel Golden suggested in April 1993 that Terry Brady apply for a negotiated timber sale to demonstrate a model timber-salvage project.
- After two initial rejections, State Forester Tom Boutin agreed on June 30, 1993, to 'entertain' six applications for negotiated sales, including the Bradys'.
- In a July 21 letter, Area Forester Jim Peterson accepted Terry Brady's offer to help prepare a required Forest Land-Use Plan (FLUP) to 'help expedite the sale' and requested a $3,000 'presale deposit,' which Terry sent.
- Terry Brady subsequently collected data and submitted draft FLUPs to the state.
- On October 14, while touring the proposed sale area, Peterson stated, in response to a question about timing, 'We can be prepared to sign ... that contract ... on the day they [the Division of Lands] sign the classification order.'
- On October 20, Terry Brady submitted his final FLUP report along with an invoice for $26,250 for his services, which Peterson declined to pay.
- On November 12, Peterson wrote to Terry Brady, formally rejecting the timber sale application, citing 'competitive interest' and concerns that granting the applications would circumvent public processes for large sales.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Brady and Terry Brady filed separate lawsuits against the State of Alaska and two state officials in the superior court (trial court), which were later consolidated.
- The State moved for summary judgment on most of the claims.
- In November 1994, the superior court granted partial summary judgment to the State.
- Terry Brady amended his complaint to add individual defendants and a claim of unconstitutional retaliation.
- The defendants then moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
- In October 1996, the superior court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, and final judgment was entered in March 1997.
- The Bradys, as appellants, appealed the summary judgments to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 a state official's promise to 'entertain' an application for a timber sale, combined with subsequent statements about being prepared to sign a contract, create a legally enforceable contract to sell the timber or a right to recover for services voluntarily rendered to facilitate the sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, Justice.
No, the State's actions did not create a legally enforceable contract or a right to recovery. To form a contract, there must be an unequivocal acceptance that objectively manifests an intent to be bound. The State's promise to 'entertain' applications was, at most, an agreement to negotiate, not a promise to sell timber. Peterson’s statement that officials 'can be prepared to sign' was a comment on timing and capacity, not a present promise to be bound. Likewise, promissory estoppel fails because it requires an 'actual promise,' which was never made. The claim for payment for the FLUP services fails because there was no contract for services (lacking a price term) and no unjust enrichment. Terry Brady rendered the services to gain a business advantage, not with a reasonable expectation of payment, so it is not inequitable for the State to retain the benefit without paying. The Bradys' other claims, including takings and unconstitutional retaliation, are also without merit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for creating an enforceable contract with a government entity, particularly during preliminary negotiations. It clarifies that expressions of future intent or agreements to negotiate are not sufficient to bind the government to an ultimate agreement. The ruling also sets a precedent for claims of unjust enrichment in a commercial context, establishing that services rendered at risk by one party to secure a business advantage from another generally do not warrant restitution if the deal fails. This holding protects government agencies' discretion in complex negotiations and limits liability for costs incurred by hopeful contractors before a formal agreement is executed.
Unlock the full brief for Brady v. State