Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
If the correspondence and telegrams between parties contain all the details of a contract, it is enforceable though they intended that their agreement should be formally expressed in a single paper which, when signed, should be the evidence of what already had been agreed upon.
The contractor was already working on the new building when he received a letter from the subcontractor on the project inviting a proposition for cutting a ditch and laying the pipeline. Correspondence was exchanged, and, the night before he was to begin, the contractor received a telegram from the subcontractor to the effect that the latter would advise in a day or two about the work. No further word was received, so the contractor performed the work, then sued the subcontractor. The trial court found in the contractor's favor, and the subcontractor appealed.
Have the parties already entered into a binding agreement?
The court found that, while the correspondence between the parties indicated that the contractor preferred that their agreement be written out and formally signed, the parties had already entered into a binding agreement that could not be avoided because of their intent to have it more formally executed. The trial court's charge was therefore proper, as it was clearly intended to mean that if the parol evidence given by the contractor that he never sent the telegram indicating his desire for a written agreement was accepted by the jury, such message could not affect the determination of the issue.