From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v. Dimensional Media

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1999
260 A.D.2d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Chaterjee, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim to recover expenses incurred in negotiating the purchase of a property.

Summary of this case from Philips Int'l Invs., LLC v. Pektor

Opinion

April 1, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


When parties do not intend to be bound until their agreement is reduced to writing and signed, there is no contract in the interim ( Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v. Beam Constr. Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 397, 399; Scheck v. Francis, 26 N.Y.2d 466, 469-470), even if the parties have orally agreed upon all the terms of the proposed contract ( R.G. Group v. Horn Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69, 74). In this case, the clear language of the parties' written summary of intention indicates that any agreement was "[s]ubject to legal and tax counsel" and to all of the requirements outlined under paragraph 20, including "[n]egotiation of a definitive agreement and documentation". If there is any ambiguity in this language, it must be construed against plaintiff as drafter of the document ( see, Dunhill Sec. Corp. v. Microthermal Applications, 308 F. Supp. 195, 197).

Plaintiff's attempt to recoup its due diligence expenses on the basis of promissory estoppel and quantum meruit must also fail. The parties' failure to exempt paragraph 10 of the aforementioned summary of intention, respecting the allocation of responsibility for due diligence expenses, from the above-noted conditions precedent outlined under paragraph 20 of the same summary, as they expressly did for paragraphs 18 and 19, leads to the conclusion that in the absence of a written contract, there was no "`clear and unambiguous promise'" to reimburse such expenses ( R. G. Group v. Horn Hardart Co., 751 F.2d, supra, at 79; Frutico, S.A. de C.V. v. Bankers Trust Co., 833 F. Supp. 288, 299). The element of detrimental reliance is also lacking inasmuch as the performance of due diligence was a precondition to negotiation of the final contract, and unjust enrichment is not an appropriate remedy for recovery of the expenses of a failed negotiation ( Songbird Jet v. Amax, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 912, 926).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v. Dimensional Media

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1999
260 A.D.2d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Chaterjee, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim to recover expenses incurred in negotiating the purchase of a property.

Summary of this case from Philips Int'l Invs., LLC v. Pektor
Case details for

Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v. Dimensional Media

Case Details

Full title:CHATTERJEE FUND MANAGEMENT, L.P., Appellant, v. DIMENSIONAL MEDIA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 364

Citing Cases

Beekman Investment Partners v. Alene Candles, Inc.

A promise made in the course of negotiations that is conditional on the signing of a contract is not a "clear…

Beekman Investment Partners, L.P. v. Alene Candles, Inc.

A promise made in the course of negotiations that is conditional on the signing of a contract is not a "clear…