Zeman v. Lufthansa German Airlines
699 P.2d 1274 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where written communications contain ambiguous and conflicting language regarding the formation of a contract, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the parties' mutual assent. In such cases, summary judgment is improper, and a fact-finder must consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent.
Facts:
- Adolf Zeman, a construction developer, began building a 36-unit apartment building in Anchorage.
- In October 1978, Zeman met with Mr. Weisshun, Lufthansa German Airlines' local station manager, to discuss the possibility of Lufthansa leasing the entire building for its flight crews.
- On January 9, 1979, Zeman had dinner with Weisshun and Mr. Kisling, a Lufthansa official, where they discussed specific terms, including the number of units, cost per unit, and the length of a potential lease.
- On January 19, 1979, Kisling sent Zeman a letter stating it was Lufthansa's 'intention to accommodate' its crews in the new building but also that Lufthansa was 'not in the position of signing right now an agreement' and could not risk a 'binding contract' until the apartments were nearly finished.
- Believing an agreement was in place, Zeman accelerated his construction schedule and made modifications to the building to meet what he understood to be Lufthansa's needs.
- In March 1979, after Lufthansa refused Zeman's requests for a written commitment, Lufthansa entered into a one-year lease agreement with a different apartment complex, Anchor Arms.
- In late July 1979, Lufthansa formally informed Zeman that it would not be leasing his building.
- As a result of not securing a tenant, Zeman was unable to obtain long-term financing and ultimately lost the building to the bank.
Procedural Posture:
- Adolf Zeman sued Lufthansa German Airlines in the Superior Court of Alaska (trial court).
- Zeman's complaint alleged breach of an oral lease contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud.
- Lufthansa moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lufthansa, dismissing all of Zeman's claims.
- Zeman's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
- Zeman (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska, with Lufthansa as the appellee.
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 ambiguous language in correspondence, coupled with prior oral discussions about a potential lease, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties formed a binding oral contract, thereby making a grant of summary judgment improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, Justice
Yes, ambiguous language in correspondence creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract, making summary judgment improper. The trial court erred in finding that there was no mutual assent as a matter of law. The letters exchanged contained conflicting phrases; 'Lufthansa's intention to accommodate' could reasonably be interpreted as evidence of assent, while Zeman's closing 'I look forward to entering into an agreement' could suggest negotiations were ongoing. Because the writings are ambiguous, their interpretation requires consideration of extrinsic evidence, such as the conversations at the January 9 dinner. This presents a question of fact that must be determined by a trier of fact, not by a judge on a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim is reversed.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the high threshold for granting summary judgment in contract formation disputes, particularly when an oral agreement is alleged and subsequent writings are ambiguous. It establishes that a party's subjective intent not to be bound is irrelevant if their objective words and actions could lead a reasonable person to believe a contract was formed. The ruling confirms that ambiguous documents create questions of fact for a jury, not questions of law for a judge. This precedent cautions negotiating parties to use unequivocal language to define the status of their relationship, as mixed signals can be sufficient to force a dispute to trial.
Unlock the full brief for Zeman v. Lufthansa German Airlines