Shattuck v. Klotzbach

14 Mass. L. Rptr. 360 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In April 2001, P and Ds began discussions concerning the sale of the property. P sent an e-mail with an offer of $ 2,000,000 for the property. D responded via e-mail by expressing his appreciation for a reasonable offer and stated that he would be willing to except $ 2,250,000. D stated that e-mail is the 'preferred' manner of communication during their negotiations. On or about April 20, 2001, the parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement concerning the property which was signed by all parties. The agreement provided a $ 2,200,000 purchase price along with other contingencies. P furnished the defendants with the deposit which was held in escrow. Prior to the closing, however, the defendants were unable to procure a 'wharf license' as called for in the purchase and sale agreement. Accordingly, the parties terminated the April 20 purchase and sale agreement, and Ds returned the deposit. In July 2001, the parties again began communicating. In an e-mail sent July 24, 2001, P wrote and said that he was increasing his offer to $1.825 million. The e-mail also addressed various other details such as Ds' requests for a closing to take place in less than 30 days and that there be no contingencies. D emailed and said he would decrease the price to $2,000,000 as his counter offer. Also, if P agreed to his counter offer he would ask for 'no contingencies that might tie up the property.' D stated that any home inspection should take place within 5 days of the signing of the purchase and sale agreement, and there would be no financing contingency. D conceded that 'other standard contingencies are fine.' On August 31, 2001, D sent an e-mail stating, 'if you are still interested in a clean deal at $ .825 million let me know.' P sent an e-mail that stated he was still interested in doing a 'clean deal' for $1,825,000. He asked if he could make a 'request' that he be able to perform a 'quick walk-through inspection' and if no big flaws were apparent then he would be allowed to sign a simple purchase and sale agreement 'containing only the usual boiler plate language, no financing contingency, [and] no other contingencies at all.' P then sent D an e-mail that stated that P's attorney had told him there were no complications and that the attorney would draft a very standard purchase and sale agreement for $1,825,000 'with no usual contingencies.' D responded the same day by e-mail stating 'once we sign the P&S we'd like to close ASAP. You may have your attorney send the P&S and deposit check for 10% of the purchase price ($182,500) to my attorney.' All e-mails exchanged contained a salutation at the end which consisted of the type written name of the respective sender. P Shattuck sued to enforce the contract and to recover damages. D moved to dismiss arguing that the unsigned email correspondence did not satisfy the statute of frauds.