Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co.

262 So. 2d 226, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6711

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1972

DocketNo. 71-104

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 So. 2d 226 (Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delta Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. McDevitt & Street Co., 262 So. 2d 226, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6711 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

This case was prematurely terminated by summary judgment. Delta submitted to McDevitt & Street, a general contractor, a proposal for work as an electrical subcontractor on an apartment project. McDevitt & Street sent a letter to Delta enclosing a contract form. “If you find the enclosed in order,” they wrote, “please affix your signature and seal on Page 5 thereof and return all four copies to this office. .' . . As soon as the enclosed has been returned to us and processed, we will return an executed copy of the contract to you for your files.”

Whether this constituted an offer, which Delta accepted, or whether the contract was not to be regarded as complete until executed by both parties, is a question of fact not resolved by the depositions and affidavits on file. The trial judge apparently relied on the deposition of Delta’s president, who replied, “Certainly”, to the [227]*227question: “At all times did you contemplate that both Delta Electrical and Me-Devitt & Street would sign a written con- , ,

A distinction must be drawn between the intention to memorialize in writing an existing and binding agreement and an intention that no agreement come into being until both parties have executed a signed document.¹ The factual issue here is virtually the same as that in Housing Authority of Fort Pierce v. Foster,² and should proceed as that case did.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

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

MANN, Judge.

This case was prematurely terminated by summary judgment. Delta submitted to McDevitt & Street, a general contractor, a proposal for work as an electrical subcontractor on an apartment project. McDevitt & Street sent a letter to Delta enclosing a contract form. “If you find the enclosed in order,” they wrote, “please affix your signature and seal on Page 5 thereof and return all four copies to this office. .' . . As soon as the enclosed has been returned to us and processed, we will return an executed copy of the contract to you for your files.”

Whether this constituted an offer, which Delta accepted, or whether the contract was not to be regarded as complete until executed by both parties, is a question of fact not resolved by the depositions and affidavits on file. The trial judge apparently relied on the deposition of Delta’s president, who replied, “Certainly”, to the [227]*227question: “At all times did you contemplate that both Delta Electrical and Me-Devitt & Street would sign a written con- , ,

A distinction must be drawn between the intention to memorialize in writing an existing and binding agreement and an intention that no agreement come into being until both parties have executed a signed document.¹ The factual issue here is virtually the same as that in Housing Authority of Fort Pierce v. Foster,² and should proceed as that case did.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 2d 226, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delta-electrical-contractors-inc-v-mcdevitt-street-co-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack