Essay

Memo

TO:

From:

Date:

Subject: Giannetti v. Cornillie, 514 N.W.2d 221

The case Giannetti v. Cornillie, 514 N.W.2d 221 is a civil case filed on March 21, 1994 before the Michigan Court of Appeal. It was presided over by a bench of three judges Taylor, P.J., Hood and B.A. Jasper. However, other involved in the case are Lizza & Mulcahy, P.C. (by John B. Lizza), for the plaintiff and p, Ehrlich, Foley & Serwer, P.C. (by Joseph H. Ehrlich), for the defendant.

The case is about whether the plaintiff and the defendant had an agreement or contract regarding the sale of a property. It is pointed that the defendants were representing their mother’s estate. The defendants listed their mother’s estate for sale with a real estate agent. The plaintiff offered to pay $150,000 for the home and even went ahead to pay a deposit of $2500 for the home. But the defendants got a counter offer to sale the home for $ 160,000 CITATION USL19 \l 1033 (US Law review, 2019). Therefore, the issue was brought before the court for determination, whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the sale of property and whether the plaintiff should be compensated for the damages.

The defendants appealed for the early ruling by the lower court which granted the plaintiff’ petition a specific performance of certain agreement to sell real estate. The plaintiff made an appeal to determine the damages for compensation. The judges were tasked to determine where the plaintiff and the defendant had a viable agreement or contract in relationship to the premises. The court was asked to determine whether there was a meeting of mind. The term of contract and whether the two parties abiding contract which can be used. This was to allow the court to determine whether the plaintiff violated an agreement which is an offense.

He disputed issues between the plaintiff and the defendants was whether the agreement existed of not. The defendant argued that he trial court did not make appropriate and sound ruling when ruled that there was a contract and therefore, the defendant never agreed with the plaintiff. It is argued that the amount of mortgage could not be charged relatively. It was argued by the defendants that the unilateral declaration is not a contract. A contract is made when parties come together and accepted and executed the agreed terms. It also becomes applicable when both parties sign the contracts. Therefore, the major disputed issue was whether there was a contract and whether the contract is binding both parties.

The judges made a ruling that there was an agreement between the defendants and the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants violated the agreement. The court also found that the agreement was signed by Henry who wanted to buy the home himself and therefore, claim of signing documents are of error does not make sense since Henry is an intelligent man and cannot sign an document without being aware. The judges therefore, made a ruling that there was a contract and the damages should be paid to the plaintiff.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY US Law review. (2019). PATRICK J GIANNETTI V CHARLES J CORNILLIE JR. https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/1997/19971007-c189809-0042-189809-opn.html , 2-15.