Pan Handle Realty LLC v Olins (2013)

Solve your problems or get new ideas with basic brainstorming

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Pan Handle Realty LLC v Olins (2013) by Mind Map: Pan Handle Realty LLC v Olins (2013)

1. Application

1.1. Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the Defendant breached an enforceable lease agreement based on....

1.1.1. Whether or not there was a "meeting of the minds" to enter into a binding contractual agreement

1.2. Defendant must prove....

1.2.1. that no contractual agreement was entered into because the material terms were still being negotiated and various issues were unresolved

2. Rule of Law

2.1. Objective Theory of Contracts

2.1.1. Plaintiff must show that there was a "meeting of the minds" between parties in order to show that there was a bilateral, enforceable, contract created

3. Facts

3.1. Pan Handle Realty (PHR) developed a luxury home in Westport, CT

3.1.1. Defendant (Olins) showed interest in leasing the home for a period of a year @ 12k/month by submitting a proposal to the Plaintiff (PHR)

3.2. Jan 17th, 2009 both parties met to discuss, and revise draft lease

3.2.1. Jan 19th, 2009 both parties signed a lease that committed the Defendant to one annual payment of 138k to which the Defendant made a post dated check

3.3. After the Plaintiff attempted to deposit rent check they were notified of a stop payment from the Defendant

3.3.1. A notice from the Defendant was subsequently delivered to the Plaintiff merely stating that the Defendant "is unable to pursue any further interest in the property"

4. Issue Before the Court

4.1. Whether or not there exists an enforceable contract between the two parties given the facts

5. Conclusion

5.1. Evidence on record supported the Plaintiff's claims that both parties entered into a valid lease agreement because there was a true meeting of the parties minds