Kenneth W. Miller, II v. Eric Flegenheimer
2016 VT 125, 161 A.3d 524, 203 Vt. 620 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an enforceable contract to be formed through informal communications like email, the parties must objectively manifest a clear intent to be bound and agree on all essential terms. An exchange that references future formal documents and is followed by a proposal of new, material terms is considered a preliminary negotiation, not a binding contract.
Facts:
- Buyer and Seller were co-owners of a document shredding company, each holding half of the stock.
- After their working relationship deteriorated, they engaged in months of unsuccessful negotiations to create a formal buy-sell agreement, which ended on December 9, 2013.
- On December 26, 2013, Seller sent Buyer an email offering to sell his shares at a price determined by the average of two prior appraisals, conditioned on a 'claw-back' provision.
- On December 31, Buyer replied via email, stating 'I will accept your offer' and noting that Seller should expect 'drafts of the definitive documents containing customary provisions' soon.
- On January 9, 2014, Buyer sent Seller a 12-page Stock Purchase Agreement and a 6-page Non-Compete Agreement.
- These draft documents included several new terms, such as the Non-Compete agreement, which was described as a 'condition precedent', and reallocated $50,000 of the purchase price as consideration for the Non-Compete.
- On January 14, after reviewing the documents, Seller emailed Buyer to withdraw his offer to sell.
Procedural Posture:
- Buyer brought suit against Seller in the trial court, seeking specific performance of the alleged contract.
- The trial court, adopting a framework that recognizes 'Type II' preliminary agreements, ruled in favor of Buyer, finding the parties had an enforceable agreement to negotiate the remaining terms in good faith.
- Seller appealed the trial court's judgment to the Vermont Supreme Court.
- Buyer cross-appealed, arguing the trial court should have found a fully enforceable 'Type I' contract.
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 emails between business partners outlining a price and a general condition for the sale of company shares create an enforceable contract, even when the acceptance email references future 'definitive documents' and is followed by draft agreements containing new, material terms?
Opinions:
Majority - Reiber, C.J.
No, the series of emails did not create an enforceable contract. For a contract to be formed, parties must objectively manifest an intent to be bound and agree on all essential terms. The court applied its four-factor test from Catamount Slate to determine intent and found all four factors weighed against enforceability: (1) Buyer’s reference to 'definitive documents' served as an express reservation against being bound; (2) there was no partial performance; (3) all material terms, such as the specifics of the claw-back provision and a potential non-compete agreement, had not been agreed upon; and (4) a multi-million dollar business sale is a complex transaction that is usually committed to a formal, signed writing. Furthermore, the court concluded that Buyer's January 9 draft agreements containing new material terms constituted a counter-offer, which terminated Seller's original offer, rather than an acceptance.
Concurring - Robinson, J.
No, the emails did not create an enforceable contract. The concurrence agrees with the result but for a narrower reason: the parties had no meeting of the minds on the specifics of the 'claw-back' provision, which was an essential and complex component of the deal. Without agreement on how this essential term would operate, no contract was formed. However, the concurrence disagrees with the majority's suggestion that the failure to discuss a non-compete agreement was a fatal flaw, arguing that a non-compete is not essential to such an agreement and that allowing its later introduction to void a deal could encourage 'bait and switch' tactics.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for forming a binding contract through informal email exchanges, especially for complex business transactions. The court's application of the Catamount Slate test highlights that references to future, formal documentation are strong evidence against an immediate intent to be bound. By explicitly declining to adopt the New York 'Type I/Type II' framework for preliminary agreements, the Vermont Supreme Court signaled a continuing reluctance to enforce 'agreements to agree,' thereby providing greater certainty to negotiating parties that they will not be unexpectedly trapped in a contract before signing a final, comprehensive document.
