The Court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a Letter of Intent containing language which said that it did "not create any binding, contractual rights between Flowers and JDH and shall serve only as an expression of intent between the parties" was an unenforceable agreement to agree.
The Court held that (1) the document itself supported the finding that it was a non-binding agreement, (2) there were many significant terms left unaddressed in the LOI, (3) complicated real estate development projects "generally require the execution of lengthy, sophisticated, and detailed documents to govern the relationships between the parties," (4) courts should decline to fill in material gaps left open by contracting parties, (5) the LOI failed to provide any remedy in the event a contemplated LLC was never formed, and (6) JDH, as the drafter of the LOI, should have any ambiguity resolved against it.
The Court also rejected the argument that the subsequent oral agreements of the parties, and their partial performance, made the LOI enforceable; and also the argument that the Plaintiff was in the alternative entitled to a recovery in quantum meruit.
Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgmen
Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment