Thomas K. Allen, Jr. v. Cedar Real Estate Group, LLP
236 F.3d 374, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 44, 2001 WL 10622 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a purchase offer is explicitly made 'subject to' the purchaser's approval of a future event, such as an environmental audit, that approval is a condition precedent to the formation of a contract. No binding contract exists until that condition is satisfied or waived by the benefiting party.
Facts:
- Thomas Keith Allen made a written offer to purchase a 6.2-acre parcel of land from Cedar Real Estate Group, LLP ('Cedar').
- Allen's offer included a typed addendum stating, 'This offer to purchase is subject to purchaser[’]s approval of... a current Phase 1 and Phase 11 Environmental Audit.'
- Cedar made a counteroffer with minor changes, which Allen accepted, leaving the 'subject to approval' clause intact.
- Allen exercised his option and commissioned an environmental audit, which revealed significant soil and groundwater contamination from diesel fuel.
- After receiving the unfavorable report, Allen's agent informed Cedar that Allen was prepared to close only after receiving an 'acceptably clean environmental report' and that responsibility for remediation belonged to Cedar.
- For approximately four months, the parties engaged in unsuccessful negotiations regarding the allocation of cleanup costs.
- Cedar terminated the agreement due to the inability to resolve the environmental issues, and Allen insisted a binding contract was still in place.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Keith Allen filed suit against Cedar Real Estate Group in the United States District Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction.
- Allen sought damages and/or specific performance of the alleged land sale contract.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Cedar Real Estate Group.
- Allen, as the appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 an enforceable contract for the sale of land exist when the purchase offer is explicitly made 'subject to the purchaser's approval' of an environmental audit, and the purchaser, after discovering contamination, does not approve but instead attempts to renegotiate responsibility for remediation costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge
No, an enforceable contract does not exist because the purchaser's approval of the environmental audit was an unsatisfied condition precedent to the formation of the contract. The language inserted by Allen, making 'this offer to purchase... subject to Purchaser’s approval,' clearly demonstrates an intent to condition the offer itself, not merely the performance of an already existing contract. The court reasoned that interpreting the agreement otherwise would render the right to an environmental audit meaningless, as Allen would be obligated to purchase the property regardless of the findings. Allen's response to the unfavorable audit—stating he would close only on an 'acceptably clean' property and demanding Cedar bear remediation costs—constituted a failure to satisfy the condition precedent. The subsequent negotiations were not discussions under an existing contract but a series of new offers and counteroffers, none of which were accepted. Finally, Allen never waived the condition, as his conduct consistently showed he was unwilling to purchase the property 'as is' until after Cedar had already terminated the agreement.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between a condition precedent to contract formation versus a condition precedent to performance. By focusing on the specific language conditioning the 'offer' itself, the court concluded that no contract was ever formed. This decision serves as a powerful precedent for real estate transactions involving contingencies, emphasizing that unless the condition is met or waived, there is no binding agreement to enforce. It underscores the importance of precise contract drafting, as the choice between conditioning an 'offer' versus conditioning a 'duty to perform' can determine whether parties have a contract at all.
