Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, P.C. v. Kent & Johnson, LLP
346 P.3d 658 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A binding contract is formed through an objective manifestation of intent, shown by an offer and an unqualified acceptance of its material terms. Subsequent failure to sign a formal document memorializing the agreement does not invalidate the contract if signing was a condition of performance, not a condition of formation.
Facts:
- Defendants Kent & Johnson represented Plaintiff Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, P.C. in an arbitration.
- Dissatisfied with the representation, Bridge City's president, Bunker, contacted defendants' malpractice insurer, the Professional Liability Fund (PLF), to discuss a settlement.
- On August 21, 2012, after an initial inquiry, Bunker emailed PLF's adjuster, Schafer, offering to settle for $40,000.
- On August 23, Schafer counter-offered $10,000 in exchange for a mutual release of all claims.
- Over the following two weeks, Bunker and Schafer exchanged multiple counter-offers via email, with Schafer consistently reiterating that a mutual release was a required term.
- During these negotiations, Bunker argued only over the dollar amount and never objected to the mutual release term.
- On September 6, Bunker sent an email stating, 'I continue to be willing to settle this for $19,000.'
- On September 7, Schafer replied via email, 'The PLF and Kent & Johnson accept your offer,' and enclosed a formal Mutual Release document for signature.
- On October 30, after receiving the document, Bridge City, through a new attorney, informed Schafer that it had decided not to settle on those terms.
Procedural Posture:
- Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, P.C. sued Kent & Johnson, LLP in an Oregon state trial court for professional malpractice.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by a binding settlement agreement.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- The trial court also awarded defendants attorney's fees and costs.
- Plaintiff Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, P.C., as appellant, appealed the summary judgment and the award of fees to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 series of email negotiations, culminating in an explicit acceptance of a monetary offer, form a binding settlement agreement even when one party later refuses to sign a formal release document that was repeatedly mentioned as a material term during negotiations?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrett, J.
Yes, a series of email negotiations culminating in an explicit acceptance of a monetary offer forms a binding settlement agreement. The court examines the objective manifestations of intent, evidenced by the parties' communications, to determine if a contract was formed. Here, Bunker's communications, such as being 'willing to settle...for $40,000,' evolved from an inquiry into specific, unconditional offers. Schafer's counteroffers introduced a mutual release as a material term. Bunker's failure to object to this term while continuing to negotiate only the dollar amount constituted tacit acceptance, making it part of the agreement. Schafer's September 7th email stating 'we accept your offer' was an unqualified acceptance that formed a binding contract. The requirement to sign the release document was a condition precedent to the performance of the contract (i.e., payment), not a condition precedent to its formation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that contract formation is judged by objective actions and communications, not subjective intent. It illustrates how assent to a material term can be implied by conduct, such as failing to object during negotiations, which is significant in the context of informal electronic correspondence. The case also clarifies the critical distinction between a condition for contract formation and a condition for performance, establishing that an agreement can be binding even before a formal document memorializing it is executed. This precedent serves as a caution that ongoing negotiations can create an enforceable contract once the essential terms are agreed upon, regardless of final formalities.
