Channel Home Centers v. Grossman
795 F.2d 291 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania law, a detailed letter of intent containing a promise to negotiate in good faith and withdraw a property from the market can be an enforceable contract if the parties manifested an intent to be bound, the terms are sufficiently definite, and the agreement is supported by consideration.
Facts:
- In November 1984, Frank Grossman, a real estate developer, began discussions with Channel Home Centers for leasing a store space in the Cedarbrook Mall, which Grossman was in the process of acquiring.
- Grossman requested that Channel execute a letter of intent that he could use to help secure financing for his purchase of the mall.
- On December 11, 1984, Channel submitted a detailed letter of intent which included the provision: 'To induce the Tenant to proceed with the leasing of this Store, you will withdraw the Store from the rental market, and only negotiate the above described leasing transaction to completion.'
- Grossman signed and returned the letter of intent to Channel.
- Following the execution of the letter, both parties took significant steps towards a final lease: Channel developed marketing plans, drafted building plans, and purchased materials, while Grossman applied for zoning permits for Channel's signs.
- On January 22, 1985, while negotiations with Channel were ongoing, Grossman was contacted by a competitor, Mr. Good Buys, about leasing the same space.
- On February 6, 1985, Grossman terminated negotiations with Channel, citing a 30-day time limit not present in the letter of intent.
- On February 7, 1985, Grossman executed a lease agreement for the same space with Mr. Good Buys for a substantially higher rent.
Procedural Posture:
- Channel Home Centers (plaintiff) filed a diversity action against Frank Grossman and his companies (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging breach of contract.
- Channel moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.
- The district court granted the TRO.
- After a preliminary injunction hearing, the district court consolidated the motion with a trial on the merits and entered judgment for Grossman, finding the letter of intent was not an enforceable contract.
- Channel filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied, but offered another evidentiary hearing that Channel declined.
- Channel (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 property owner's promise in a detailed letter of intent to withdraw a property from the rental market and negotiate in good faith with a prospective tenant create a binding and enforceable contract for a reasonable period of time?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge.
Yes, a property owner's promise in a detailed letter of intent to withdraw a property from the rental market and negotiate in good faith can create a binding and enforceable contract. The court reasoned that an agreement to negotiate in good faith is an enforceable contract if it meets the traditional requirements of contract formation: manifestation of intent to be bound, sufficiently definite terms, and consideration. Here, the language of the letter of intent and the subsequent actions of both parties demonstrated an intent to be bound by the promise to negotiate. The promise to 'withdraw the Store from the rental market, and only negotiate... to completion' was a sufficiently definite term to be enforced. Finally, consideration existed because Channel's execution of the letter provided a tangible benefit to Grossman, who used it to help secure financing for his acquisition of the mall, which was a bargained-for exchange for his promise to negotiate exclusively and in good faith.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that under Pennsylvania law, a preliminary 'agreement to negotiate' can be a distinct and enforceable contract, separate from the final agreement it contemplates. It provides a legal remedy for parties who invest substantial resources in reliance on a promise to negotiate in good faith, only to have the other party abandon negotiations for a better offer. The decision distinguishes an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' from an enforceable 'agreement to negotiate,' thereby creating a duty of good faith during the bargaining process when parties explicitly agree to it and exchange consideration.
