Summary
finding parties never had a meeting of the minds and no contract was formed when "all that [could] be derived" from parties' course of conduct was an invitation from defendant to plaintiff to submit an idea, defendant requested additional details of idea, defendant "did not promise to pay for the mere submission of an idea," and after receipt of information from plaintiff of additional information, defendant stated it was not interested in idea
Summary of this case from Read v. ProfetaOpinion
Argued February 9, 1971 —
Decided April 5, 1971.
On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County.
Before Judges LEWIS, MATTHEWS and MINTZ.
Mr. Harry Heher, Jr. argued the cause for appellant.
Mr. Lewis H. Eslinger of the New York Bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Weinberg and Manoff, attorneys).
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Seidman in his reported opinion, 107 N.J. Super. 311.