Case ID: nev_108/html/0895-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BIBICOFF & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. STAN FULTON, Respondent.
    No. 22691
    October 22, 1992
    839 P.2d 133
    
      Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison & Howard and Richard L. Elmore, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
    
      Lionel Sawyer & Collins and David N. Frederick, Las Vegas, for Respondent.
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

Appellant, Harvey Bibicoff, claims that he and respondent, Stan Fulton, entered into an oral contract whereby Fulton agreed to pay to Bibicoff a fee if Bibicoff successfully obtained a buyer for Fulton’s stock. Fulton denies any such agreement was made. There are many issues of fact relating to the existence of the claimed contract, and, as well, to Bibicoff’s claim based on quantum meruit and to his claim for fraud based on Fulton’s making a promise that he did not intend to keep. Summary judgment should not have been granted under these circumstances; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court.