OPINION OF THE COURT BY
KOBAYASHI, J.
Saito (herein appellant) appeals from the trial court’s refusal to give to the jury a portion of appellant’s requested [179]*179instruction. The jury rendered a verdict of $105,000.00 in favor of Carson (herein appellee).
FACTS
This case results from an action initiated by appellee to recover a finder’s fee allegedly due from appellant under an express oral contract. Appellee was in the business of selling buses. Appellant was the owner of many bus companies in Hawaii. Both parties had contracted with each other in the past regarding sales of buses by appellee to appellant.
In February, 1968, they had a discussion pertaining to a possible sale of appellant’s bus companies. Appellee testified that he informed appellant that he believed he could find an interested buyer and, for finding such a buyer, appellee was to receive a finder’s fee of 5 percent of the selling price. According to appellee, appellant orally agreed to this arrangement. Appellant testified that he never agreed to pay appellee 5 percent of the purchase price but that he had said he would “take care of him” should appellee find a buyer. It is also appellant’s position that there was never any agreement as to a specific amount of compensation or what services appellee was to perform.
Appellee disclosed to a potential buyer that appellant was interested in selling his bus companies. Subsequently the buyer got in touch with appellant, an agreement was reached and the sale was closed in April, 1969. Appellee requested his 5 percent finder’s fee and appellant responded that he had never agreed to a 5 percent commission and refused to pay.
QUESTION
When, as in this case, the question of the existence of a contract is one of mixed fact and law, its submission to the jury should be accompanied with instructions giving specific definitions of a valid contract applicable to any find[180]*180ings of fact which the evidence may justify. It is not disputed by the parties in the instant case that that portion of the instruction which was requested but not given was a proper statement of the law. It is necessary, however, that we determine whether that portion of the instruction denied by the trial court was adequately covered by the instructions given.
We have held that it is error to refuse to give instructions requested which correctly state the law on issues presented, unless the points are adequately covered by the instructions given. Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304, 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969). We have also held that it is not error to refuse a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions. Ashford v. Thos. Cook & Son, 52 Haw. 113, 122, 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); State v. Stuart, 51 Haw. 656, 660-61, 466 P.2d 444, 447 (1970); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98, 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967).
As to the issue of whether the denied instruction was adequately covered and further, on the question of what constitutes a valid contract, the instructions given by the trial court in the following order are applicable:
You are instructed that a contract is an agreement between two or more persons by which each promises to do a particular thing.
A contract need not be in writing. An oral contract is enforceable.
In determining whether or not there was a contract between plaintiff and defendant, you should take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case. You should consider the subject matter, the conduct of the parties, the discussions, if any, had between them, and the statements you believe were made by them.
If you find that both plaintiff and defendant agreed merely that defendant would “take care of” plaintiff if plaintiff found a buyer for defendant’s business, then you must return a verdict for defendant because an agree[181]*181ment to “take care of” plaintiff is merely an agreement to agree in the future and does not constitute an enforceable contract.
In this case plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendant for services claimed to have been rendered by him to defendant as the result of a claimed oral contract to pay him a 5 percent finders fee for obtaining a purchaser of defendant’s bus business. In order to recover, plaintiff must have proved to you by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1. There was such a contract as that term is defined herein;
2. That pursuant to that agreement he rendered the service agreed upon; and
3. That those services were the predominating effective cause'in bringing the buyer and seller together.
The following is that portion of the instruction which was denied by the trial court. As requested by appellant it was to directly follow the three elements of proof enumerated above.
A contract is entered into when the parties thereto reach a mutual agreement as to all the essential elements thereof. The essential agreed-on elements of a contract for personal services such as the alleged agreement in this case are:
1. The services to be rendered by plaintiff to or on behalf of defendant.
2. The time in which such services are to he performed.
3. The compensation to be paid by defendant to plaintiff for those services.
If an agreement leaves one or more of these elements to be settled by further negotiation it is merely an agreement to agree and is not a valid and binding contract.
At the trial of this case appellee elected not to pursue a recovery on a quantum meruit theory for the actual services rendered appellant. Instead appellée rested his claim [182]*182solely on the alleged express oral contract for 5 percent of the purchase price. Appellant testified that he agreed to “take care of” appellee but denied that he agreed to pay 5 percent of the purchase price. Appellant also asserts that he expected appellee to render more services than those rendered by appellee. As such the question presented to the jury of whether there was a contract in existence between appellee and appellant was crucial for a proper disposition of this case.
We have held that “the parties not having reached, agreement upon all of the essential and material terms, conditions or convenants of the agreement, there was failure of mutual assent or a meeting of the minds and therefore no binding contract. It is a fundamental principle of law that there must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential elements or terms in order to form a binding contract.” Honolulu Rapid Transit v. Paschoal, 51 Haw. 19, 26-27, 449 P.2d 123, 127 (1968). It is evident that the instructions given by the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on this requirement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
KOBAYASHI, J.
Saito (herein appellant) appeals from the trial court’s refusal to give to the jury a portion of appellant’s requested [179]*179instruction. The jury rendered a verdict of $105,000.00 in favor of Carson (herein appellee).
FACTS
This case results from an action initiated by appellee to recover a finder’s fee allegedly due from appellant under an express oral contract. Appellee was in the business of selling buses. Appellant was the owner of many bus companies in Hawaii. Both parties had contracted with each other in the past regarding sales of buses by appellee to appellant.
In February, 1968, they had a discussion pertaining to a possible sale of appellant’s bus companies. Appellee testified that he informed appellant that he believed he could find an interested buyer and, for finding such a buyer, appellee was to receive a finder’s fee of 5 percent of the selling price. According to appellee, appellant orally agreed to this arrangement. Appellant testified that he never agreed to pay appellee 5 percent of the purchase price but that he had said he would “take care of him” should appellee find a buyer. It is also appellant’s position that there was never any agreement as to a specific amount of compensation or what services appellee was to perform.
Appellee disclosed to a potential buyer that appellant was interested in selling his bus companies. Subsequently the buyer got in touch with appellant, an agreement was reached and the sale was closed in April, 1969. Appellee requested his 5 percent finder’s fee and appellant responded that he had never agreed to a 5 percent commission and refused to pay.
QUESTION
When, as in this case, the question of the existence of a contract is one of mixed fact and law, its submission to the jury should be accompanied with instructions giving specific definitions of a valid contract applicable to any find[180]*180ings of fact which the evidence may justify. It is not disputed by the parties in the instant case that that portion of the instruction which was requested but not given was a proper statement of the law. It is necessary, however, that we determine whether that portion of the instruction denied by the trial court was adequately covered by the instructions given.
We have held that it is error to refuse to give instructions requested which correctly state the law on issues presented, unless the points are adequately covered by the instructions given. Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 304, 459 P.2d 198, 201 (1969). We have also held that it is not error to refuse a requested instruction which is substantially covered by other instructions. Ashford v. Thos. Cook & Son, 52 Haw. 113, 122, 471 P.2d 530, 536 (1970); State v. Stuart, 51 Haw. 656, 660-61, 466 P.2d 444, 447 (1970); Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 98, 431 P.2d 931, 938 (1967).
As to the issue of whether the denied instruction was adequately covered and further, on the question of what constitutes a valid contract, the instructions given by the trial court in the following order are applicable:
You are instructed that a contract is an agreement between two or more persons by which each promises to do a particular thing.
A contract need not be in writing. An oral contract is enforceable.
In determining whether or not there was a contract between plaintiff and defendant, you should take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case. You should consider the subject matter, the conduct of the parties, the discussions, if any, had between them, and the statements you believe were made by them.
If you find that both plaintiff and defendant agreed merely that defendant would “take care of” plaintiff if plaintiff found a buyer for defendant’s business, then you must return a verdict for defendant because an agree[181]*181ment to “take care of” plaintiff is merely an agreement to agree in the future and does not constitute an enforceable contract.
In this case plaintiff seeks to recover damages from defendant for services claimed to have been rendered by him to defendant as the result of a claimed oral contract to pay him a 5 percent finders fee for obtaining a purchaser of defendant’s bus business. In order to recover, plaintiff must have proved to you by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1. There was such a contract as that term is defined herein;
2. That pursuant to that agreement he rendered the service agreed upon; and
3. That those services were the predominating effective cause'in bringing the buyer and seller together.
The following is that portion of the instruction which was denied by the trial court. As requested by appellant it was to directly follow the three elements of proof enumerated above.
A contract is entered into when the parties thereto reach a mutual agreement as to all the essential elements thereof. The essential agreed-on elements of a contract for personal services such as the alleged agreement in this case are:
1. The services to be rendered by plaintiff to or on behalf of defendant.
2. The time in which such services are to he performed.
3. The compensation to be paid by defendant to plaintiff for those services.
If an agreement leaves one or more of these elements to be settled by further negotiation it is merely an agreement to agree and is not a valid and binding contract.
At the trial of this case appellee elected not to pursue a recovery on a quantum meruit theory for the actual services rendered appellant. Instead appellée rested his claim [182]*182solely on the alleged express oral contract for 5 percent of the purchase price. Appellant testified that he agreed to “take care of” appellee but denied that he agreed to pay 5 percent of the purchase price. Appellant also asserts that he expected appellee to render more services than those rendered by appellee. As such the question presented to the jury of whether there was a contract in existence between appellee and appellant was crucial for a proper disposition of this case.
We have held that “the parties not having reached, agreement upon all of the essential and material terms, conditions or convenants of the agreement, there was failure of mutual assent or a meeting of the minds and therefore no binding contract. It is a fundamental principle of law that there must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential elements or terms in order to form a binding contract.” Honolulu Rapid Transit v. Paschoal, 51 Haw. 19, 26-27, 449 P.2d 123, 127 (1968). It is evident that the instructions given by the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on this requirement. As is quoted above, the trial court instructed the jury that “[i]n order to recover, plaintiff must have proved to you by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. There was such a contract as that term is defined herein” (emphasis added). The deletion by the trial court of appellant’s definitive requested instruction presented a probable ambiguity for the jury. Without appellant’s said instruction, the term contract was not adequately “defined herein”. Nor did the general instructions given sufficiently communicate to the jury the elements of a contract required to make it. binding. Therefore under the principle of law followed in Gibo and Ashford, supra, it was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse appellant’s instruction. The appellant’s, instruction, refused by the court, could very well have influenced the jury’s thinking to a contra verdict.
Judgment reversed.
Remanded for new trial.
[183]*183Frank D. Paa^ett (Padgett, Greeley, Marumoto & Akinaka of counsel) for defendant-appellant.
Frederick J. Titcomb (Rosehill & Titcomb of counsel) for plaintiff-appellee.