Prenger v. Baumhoer
1997 WL 63167, 939 S.W.2d 23, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 215 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of promissory estoppel to succeed, the promise must be sufficiently definite and made in a contractual sense, such that an agreement that is merely 'tentative' or an 'agreement to negotiate a future contract' is not sufficiently definite to support the claim.
Facts:
- Cyril Baumhoer owned and operated Broadway Shell, a service station and towing business in Jefferson City.
- In late 1994, Kenneth Prenger initiated discussions with Baumhoer, expressing interest in purchasing the Broadway Shell business, but Prenger's initial offers were rejected.
- On March 6, 1995, Prenger and Baumhoer, along with their representatives, met to continue negotiations regarding the possible sale.
- Following these discussions, Baumhoer's attorney drafted a letter outlining a 'tentative agreement' for Prenger to purchase Broadway Shell for $925,000, with a proposed closing date of April 1, 1995.
- Both Prenger and Baumhoer signed the letter, which specified that the agreement was contingent upon Prenger obtaining 'suitable financing' and that, if financing was secured, the parties would 'proceed directly to develop a comprehensive written contract, including terms satisfactory to both sides'.
- On March 29, 1995, Baumhoer’s attorney notified Prenger’s representatives that Baumhoer had entered into a contract to sell Broadway Shell to a third party for $925,000 cash.
- On March 30, 1995, Prenger’s request for bank financing was approved, and he orally informed Baumhoer of this development.
- On April 1, 1995, Prenger sent a letter to Baumhoer and his attorney, confirming that he had obtained financing and was ready to close the deal.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Prenger filed a two-count petition against Cyril Baumhoer in the trial court (circuit court), seeking injunctive relief and specific performance of the letter.
- Prenger later filed an amended petition adding Count III, a claim for specific performance based on the theory of promissory estoppel.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as to Counts I and II.
- Prenger appealed the dismissal of Counts I and II to the Missouri Court of Appeals (appellant), with Baumhoer as the appellee.
- In Prenger v. Baumhoer, 914 S.W.2d 413 (Mo.App.1996), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that the letter was not a binding contract but was 'at most an agreement to negotiate a future contract'.
- Baumhoer (respondent) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the trial court concerning Count III (the promissory estoppel claim).
- The trial court granted Baumhoer's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the letter did not contain a promise to sell, that any oral promises would violate the Statute of Frauds, and that the letter was not 'certain and definite'.
- Prenger appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on Count III to the Missouri Court of Appeals (appellant).
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 letter outlining a 'tentative agreement' to sell a business, contingent upon obtaining financing and explicitly stating the need to develop a comprehensive written contract with terms satisfactory to both sides, constitute a sufficiently definite promise to support a claim for promissory estoppel?
Opinions:
Majority - Berrey, Judge
No, a letter outlining a 'tentative agreement' to sell a business, contingent upon obtaining financing and explicitly stating the need to develop a comprehensive written contract, does not constitute a sufficiently definite promise to support a claim for promissory estoppel. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding that the alleged promise was not definite enough. Missouri courts require that a promise supporting a promissory estoppel claim be definite and 'made in a contractual sense,' akin to an offer under contract law, citing Amecks, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. and Clark v. Washington University. The letter's use of 'tentative agreement' and the provision for developing a 'comprehensive written contract' with terms 'satisfactory to both sides' demonstrate that it was, 'at most an agreement to negotiate a future contract.' Such agreements are unenforceable because they signify that further negotiations are required. While the Restatement (Second) of Contracts suggests a promise for promissory estoppel is not limited to having legal effect, Missouri law mandates that the promise be as definite and delineated as a contract offer. Therefore, the letter did not contain a promise sufficiently definite to permit recovery under promissory estoppel, despite Prenger's reliance.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the application of promissory estoppel in Missouri, particularly concerning preliminary agreements or 'agreements to negotiate.' By requiring the 'promise' element to be as definite and delineated as a contract offer, the court places a high bar for parties seeking to enforce commitments that fall short of a binding contract. This ruling discourages litigation over vague pre-contractual understandings and emphasizes the importance of formal, unambiguous contractual language to create enforceable obligations. Future litigants relying on promissory estoppel must demonstrate a very specific and clear promise, not merely an intention to negotiate or a tentative understanding, thereby reducing the enforceability of incomplete or exploratory business discussions.
