Bell v. B. F. Goodrich Co.

270 N.E.2d 926, 359 Mass. 763
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 8, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 270 N.E.2d 926 (Bell v. B. F. Goodrich Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 270 N.E.2d 926, 359 Mass. 763 (Mass. 1971).

Opinion

The Superior Court judge sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ declaration in a contract action for breach of an oral agreement. Count 1 of the plaintiffs’ declaration alleges breach of an oral agreement made in Ohio whereby the defendant agreed to negotiate with the plaintiffs for the acquisition by Star-Lite Industries of the defendant’s Rayco Division (Rayco); the defendant agreed to negotiate only with the plaintiffs until an agreement was consummated or until both parties mutually agreed to terminate their negotiations. The defendant subsequently negotiated a purchase and sale agreement for Rayco with another party while it was negotiating with the plaintiffs. Count 2 alleges breach of an oral agreement with the defendant giving the plaintiffs, on behalf of Star-Lite Industries, first option to purchase Rayco. This count states no option price and no period of time for the duration of the option. The plaintiffs’ declaration is insufficient in law to establish a contract. The declaration, in essence, alleges an agreement to negotiate and does not create a binding contract. Moreover, the declaration at most alleges that the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs to negotiate for the sale of the defendant’s Rayco Division for as long as the parties agreed. Such an agreement is void for vagueness. Restatement 2d: Contracts, § 32 (Tent, draft No. 1, April 13, 1964). Lyman v. Robinson, 14 Allen, 242, 254. Caggiano v. Marchegiano, 327 Mass. 574. General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc. 194 F. 2d 669, 676-677 (6th Cir.) (discussing Ohio law). Corbin, Contracts, § 95. The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dixon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
798 F. Supp. 2d 336 (D. Massachusetts, 2011)
Sax v. DiPrete
639 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Massachusetts, 2009)
Moore v. La-Z-Boy, Inc.
639 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Massachusetts, 2009)
Targus Group International, Inc. v. Sherman
21 Mass. L. Rptr. 217 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2006)
Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corp.
430 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Massachusetts, 2006)
PDC-El Paso Meriden, LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc.
18 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2004)
Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.
675 N.E.2d 403 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1997)
Mass Cash Register, Inc. v. Comtrex Systems Corp.
901 F. Supp. 404 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 N.E.2d 926, 359 Mass. 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-b-f-goodrich-co-mass-1971.