Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department held that a letter-of-intent provision requiring payment of a $2 million breakup fee was enforceable because it stated unambiguous terms and an intent to be bound. The court dismissed the plaintiff's promissory estoppel and fraud claims because the letter of intent expressly stated that it would not bind either party and therefore plaintiff could not establish justifiable reliance.
Holdings
- The provision in the letter of intent requiring payment of a $2 million fee if either party failed to execute a lease within 120 days was enforceable because its language reflected unambiguous terms and an intent to be bound.
- The promissory estoppel claim had to be dismissed because reliance on promises to proceed with a transaction is unreasonable as a matter of law when the preliminary agreement expressly requires execution of a further written agreement before either party is contractually bound.
- The fraud claim had to be dismissed because plaintiff could not establish justifiable reliance on defendant's promises to proceed, even assuming defendant had a duty to disclose its negotiations with a third party.
Questions Presented
- Whether the breakup-fee provision in the letter of intent was enforceable despite the preliminary nature of the letter.
- Whether plaintiff could maintain a promissory estoppel claim when the letter of intent required a further written agreement and expressly stated that it would not bind either party.
- Whether plaintiff could maintain a fraud claim based on defendant's alleged nondisclosure of negotiations with a third party and promises to proceed with the transaction.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (4)
- Stonehill Capital Mgt., LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 NY3d 439, 448 (2016)(followed)
- StarVest Partners II, L.P. v. Emportal, Inc., 101 AD3d 610, 613 (1st Dept. 2012)(followed)
- King Penguin Opportunity Fund III, LLC v. Spectrum Group Mgt. LLC, 187 AD3d 688, 689 (1st Dept. 2020)(followed)
- Jana L. v. West 129th St. Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 274, 277 (1st Dept. 2005)(recognized)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…