McCarthy v. Tobin
429 Mass. 84, 1999 Mass. LEXIS 106, 706 N.E.2d 629 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Offer to Purchase (OTP) real estate that contains all material terms is a binding contract, even if it contemplates the execution of a subsequent Purchase and Sale (P&S) agreement. A 'time is of the essence' clause requiring execution of the P&S by a specific deadline can be waived by the parties' conduct following the deadline.
Facts:
- On August 9, 1995, John J. McCarthy, Jr. executed a standard Offer to Purchase (OTP) form to buy property from Ann G. Tobin.
- The OTP specified the property, price, and deposits, and required the parties to execute a more detailed Purchase and Sale (P&S) agreement by 5 p.m. on August 16, 1995, stating 'Time is of the essence.'
- The OTP also contained a typewritten clause making it 'Subject to a Purchase and Sale Agreement satisfactory to Buyer and Seller' and a pre-printed notice that it 'is a legal document that creates binding obligations.'
- Tobin signed and accepted the OTP on August 11, 1995.
- After the 5 p.m. deadline on August 16, Tobin's lawyer sent a first draft of the P&S agreement to McCarthy's lawyer.
- Over the next week, from August 21 to August 25, the lawyers for both parties negotiated revisions to the P&S agreement without discussing the expired deadline.
- On August 26, McCarthy signed the finalized P&S agreement. That same day, Tobin accepted a separate offer to purchase the property from the DiMinicos.
- On August 29, Tobin's lawyer informed McCarthy's lawyer that their agreement was void because the P&S was not signed by the deadline and that Tobin had accepted another offer.
Procedural Posture:
- John J. McCarthy, Jr. (plaintiff) filed an action for specific performance and damages against Ann G. Tobin (defendant) in the Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
- The DiMinicos (interveners) joined the lawsuit to protect their interest in the property.
- The trial court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Tobin and the DiMinicos.
- McCarthy (appellant) appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appeals Court vacated the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of McCarthy.
- The DiMinicos (appellants) applied for further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (highest court) granted.
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 standard Offer to Purchase (OTP) for real estate constitute a binding contract when it includes all material terms but also requires the execution of a subsequent Purchase and Sale (P&S) agreement by a specific deadline that passes while the parties are still negotiating?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
Yes, a standard Offer to Purchase (OTP) can be a binding contract under these circumstances. The controlling factor is the parties' intent. When parties have agreed upon all material terms (such as the property description and price), it can be inferred that a later, more formal document is intended merely as a polished memorandum of an already binding contract. The OTP used familiar contractual language like 'offer' and 'accept' and explicitly warned it created 'binding obligations,' demonstrating the parties' intent to be bound. The proposed revisions to the subsequent P&S agreement concerned 'ministerial and nonessential terms,' not a failure to agree on the core deal. Furthermore, the 'time is of the essence' clause for signing the P&S agreement was waived by Tobin's conduct. Her lawyer sent the draft P&S after the deadline had passed and continued to negotiate for days without objection. This conduct signified a waiver of the deadline, meaning time was no longer of the essence and McCarthy's tender of the signed agreement was reasonable. Therefore, the OTP was a binding contract, and McCarthy is entitled to specific performance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standing of standard Offer to Purchase forms in Massachusetts, establishing that they are not mere 'agreements to agree' but binding contracts when they contain the essential terms of a real estate transaction. It cautions parties that signing an OTP is a significant legal act, and the subsequent P&S agreement is often just for formalizing subsidiary details. The ruling also reinforces the doctrine of waiver, demonstrating that a party cannot rely on a 'time is of the essence' clause to escape a contract if their own conduct after the deadline is inconsistent with its enforcement. This provides stability in real estate deals by preventing sellers from using minor delays, which they participated in, as a pretext to accept a better offer.
