Case No.:

AC-REV.102.1957

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Contract—Offer and acceptance—Existence of contract where writing is contemplated in the future

Where oral testimony shows that it was the intention of the patties, not to be bound by contract until their negotiated agreement was put in writing, their preceding communications will not be operative as offer and acceptance.

Judgment

.(COURT OF APPEAL)*

GEORGE KRONFLI v. DIMITRI CATSIMANIS

AC-REV.102.1957

Advocate: Ahmed Gumaa………. for applicant

M. I. El Nur 1. July 24, 1957 :—The most important point in this case is whether it was the intention of the parties that the agreement for sale was not to be binding until it had been put into’writing or not.

The district judge said no binding agreement was concluded and he did no consider the two brokers interested in the completion of the sale.

Court: M. A. Abu Ronnat C.J. and M. I. El Nur J.

The learned Judge of the High Court agreed with him. Personally do not think applicant has a great hope of success. The refusal of respondent to take the earnest money or advance payment and his request that it should be postponed until after the contract was written, or, to use the words of applicant, duly typed. may be taken as showing that it was the intention of defendant that he should not be hound until the agreement was put into writing. I refer in this case to Coope v. Ridour[1921]. I Ch.291, in which it was held that even assuming that all the terms of the agreement had been settled one by one and embodied in a draft, the condition contained in the offer required that a written agreement made between parties should be formally entered into and in the absence of such a document there was no enforceable contract.

Unless the Honourable Chief Justice thinks that applicant should be given an opportunity to argue that the refusal of defendant to receive a the earnest money after the alleged agreement of sale was concluded, and his desire that such payment should he postponed till after agreement was put into writing, should not be taken as evidence of his intention to be bound by that agreement until after it was put into writing. a point which was not touched upon by the learned advocate for applicant in his memorandum of appeal, in my opinion this application should he dismissed as hopeless.

M. A. Abu Rannut Cf. July 24.1957: — I hid no hope for the success of this revision and I therefore summarily dismiss this application.