Channel Home Centers v. Grossman
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
795 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986)
Facts
Channel Home Centers (Channel) (plaintiff) owned and operated retail home improvement stores. Grossman (defendant) and his company Tri-Star were real estate brokers and developers who were buying Cedarbrook Mall. Grossman contacted Channel to offer it a lease in Cedarbrook Mall. Channel was interested, but in order to help Grossman secure financing to purchase the mall, Grossman requested Channel to prepare a letter of intent. Channel accordingly submitted a letter of intent specifying terms of the lease and requesting Grossman withdraw the property from the market for the purposes of concluding the lease with Channel. Grossman signed the letter of intent, and Channel had its attorneys prepare a lease for the premises. Channel also developed marketing plans, building plans, and delivery schedules and purchased materials and equipment. Channel submitted a proposed lease to Grossman, but Grossman began showing the property to another prospective tenant and later sent Channel a letter terminating the negotiations on the basis of Channel’s alleged failure to submit a satisfactory lease within a thirty-day time period. Channel sued when Grossman leased the property to the other prospective tenant. The district court held that the letter of intent was not a valid agreement and so was not binding on Grossman, and Channel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
