A binding letter of intent may include a clause obliging the parties to negotiate in good faith (the Final Agreement). Perhaps surprisingly, Indiana (and other states) support this (with a few exceptions); there is no implied obligation of good faith in the negotiation or performance of a contract. If it is not ambiguous, it must be carried out as it is written. This condemns a party that is cold on its feet and emits tactics to avoid closing the deal. Fourth question: Can a non-binding declaration of intent be applied? The mere designation of a document as a “declaration of intent” does not make it non-binding on the parties. A well-drafted Memorandum of Understanding provides that none of its provisions are legally binding, with the exception of certain provisions such as confidentiality and exclusivity. If the letter of intent is properly drafted and specifies the binding and/or non-binding nature of the provisions, this is a rather brief analysis. However, if the letter of intent is silent on the binding and/or non-binding nature of the provisions, the analysis takes longer and is somewhat more differentiated. Given the current economic climate created by the country`s response to the COVID-19 outbreak, many parties may have found that their potential transactions were stalled or had been cancelled altogether. This situation has likely led many people to question whether or not their executed letter of intent (or “letter of intent”) can provide them with protection, recourse, or redress.
The example clause above is not the cure for everything. In a binding letter of intent, buyer and seller will wish to indicate the representations and warranties that will be given or excluded. With the constant use of skin glue, luthiers around the world can rest assured that they can disassemble stringed instruments when needed. With the constant use of a solid letter of intent form, frequent warnings, and the help of an experienced business lawyer, a letter of intent can provide a non-binding framework for maintaining a business relationship together until the parties sign a permanent contract. “If the wording of the agreement is unambiguous, its meaning can legally be determined solely on the basis of the letter, without recourse to extrinsic evidence.” Salerno v. Odoardi, 41 A.D.3d 574, 575 (2nd department 2007). Since it is legally a question of whether a contract is ambiguous or not (W.W.W. Assoc.c. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157 (1990)), a court must first determine whether, prima facie, the agreement at issue is reasonably capable of further interpretation (see Chimart Assoc.c. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570 (1986)). If a clause or contractual term is ambiguous and the determination of the intention of the parties depends on the credibility of the extrinsic evidence or the choice among the conclusions to be drawn from the extrinsic evidence, then the interpretation of that wording is a question of fact and the conclusion is a procedural matter.
Amusement bus. Underwriters v. American Intl. Group, 66 N.Y.2d 878 880 (1985). Any ambiguity in a contract must be interpreted against the party who drafted the contract. See Guardian Life Ins. Co. von Am. v.
Schaefer, 70 N.Y.2d 888 (1987). At Lafarge, Lafarge and Matraco signed a letter of intent to form a joint venture to pursue a mining project. The letter of intent read: “This letter does not impose any binding obligation on the parties and is not intended to do so.” After the execution of the letter, but before the contract under consideration was never executed, the parties began the first investigation into the project and the purchase of equipment. A year later, and still without a contract concluded, the relationship between the parties deteriorated and they separated. Matraco sued Lafarge for breach of contract. The court dismissed the infringement action because no contract was ever performed and because the letter of intent was not a binding and enforceable agreement. In addition, Matraco filed a lawsuit for fraudulent misrepresentation due to Lafarge`s intention to enter into the proposed joint venture. The court also rejected this claim because it is not entitled to rely on an act to which the other party is not bound and Lafarge was not obliged to enter into the agreement simply because it expressed its intention to sue the company.
The letter of intent was not enough to get the deal through. For example, the parties` actions may indicate that they considered a letter of intent to be binding if one party makes a claim based on the terms of the letter of intent and the other party assigns a previously held objection, and so on. Most lawyers are of the opinion that a jury and not a judge is much more likely to find a statement of intent stating that it is not binding, binding, because a letter of intent for laymen has all the manifestations of an enforceable contract. Some authors have suggested that if a letter of intent is supposed to be non-binding, why sign it? Other authors suggest that a document should not be called a statement of intent, but a term sheet or memorandum of understanding. The Court held that the letter of intent constituted a valid and binding agreement between the parties. The court noted that the “Letter of Intent sets out all significant terms of the agreed transaction, including the parties, purchase price, location and size of the replacement property; mortgage contracts; Go to dark payments; Assumption of costs; and delivery conditions. Slip Op. to *14.
In addition, the court noted that the letter of intent “contained detailed specifications regarding the replacement property, including parking spaces, loading ramp requirements, and a preliminary floor plan. ” and a delivery request in which Forest City agreed to “replace [A.J.] Richard is essentially completely in the “vanilla box” state, which the MOU defines as “the specified capacity of the electrical system”, “air conditioning system requirements, accessibility requirements and plumbing, sprinkler and entry and exit modes”. Id. at **14-15. Leave it unsigned. If the parties intend to make a non-binding letter of intent, they should consider leaving it unsigned. The NY Statute of Frauds (NY GOL § 5-703 (2)) provides that a contract for the sale (or lease of real estate for more than one year) is void unless it is written and signed by the party against whom performance is sought. Negotiating the main terms of the agreement is often difficult and time-consuming, and many parties want to sign a letter of intent to acknowledge that they have reached an important milestone in their preliminary negotiations.
Even parties who have successfully negotiated a letter of intent often overlook the possibility that the agreement will not actually be reached. However, if the parties intend that the LETTER of Intent is not binding, it may be preferable not to have it signed and to proceed directly to the negotiation of the final agreements. Most letters of intent have a disclaimer stating that they should not be binding. An erroneous disclaimer can lead to ambiguity and cause more of the letter of intent to be binding than originally intended. Such an imperfect disclaimer could be as follows: Most LTs include a disclaimer stating that the letter of intent is “non-binding,” with a few exceptions. But even with this language, what looks like a routine statement of intent can turn into a binding contract. Third question: how can a letter of intent that claims to be binding be executed if it requires the preparation of a final agreement and contains other conditional provisions? To determine the rights and obligations of the parties to a written act, the courts will apply the agreement on its terms if the agreement is “complete, clear and unambiguous at first sight”. Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002); RIS Assoc. c.
N.Y. Job Dev. Auth., 98 N.Y.2d 29, 32 (2002). The purpose of interpreting a written document by the court is to arrive at an interpretation that gives due meaning to all its conditions and provisions and to arrive at a “practical interpretation of the parties` expressions so that their reasonable expectations are realized”. Pellot v. Pellot, 305 A.D.2d 478 (2nd department 2003). To do this, the courts apply “an objective test,” which “means that the manifestation of a party`s intent, rather than the actual or actual intent, is usually controlling.” Four Seasons Hotels vs. .
. .
