Court: |
WI Supreme Court |
|
Facts: |
Defendants want to purchase 2 commercial properties in Beloit. There
was an offer to purchase, and it was contigent upon obtaining the
"proper" amount of financing. The bank wouldn't loan the total
amount, but proposed a scheme of incorporating the business, and
getting a loan in its name. Anyway, the deal falls through because
the defendants can't get the amount of financing they want. |
|
Posture: |
The sellers sue, and the court finds for the defendants, dismissing
the complaint. Appeal. |
|
Issue: |
Is the financing clause definite enough to have a contract with certain
meaning (i.e., was there a meeting of the minds)? |
|
Holding: |
No, the contract is void for indefiniteness. |
|
Rule: |
If we were to adopt either the plaintiff's view or the defendants',
we'd be making a contract, not merely interpreting an
existing one. |
|
Reasoning: |
A contract is certain if the surrounding circumstances make it
unambiguous. If the parties are free to interpret a term
in wildly different manners, it's not a definite contract,
and must fail. |
|
Dicta: |
|