Opinion ID: 2353245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Contracting with the LLC

Text: [¶ 30] The order of the City Council that granted the city manager authority to execute the purchase and sale agreement authorized him to execute a purchase and sale agreement between the City of Augusta and Joseph Boulos and Partners. The Boulos proposal was made on behalf of Joseph F. Boulos and Partners and/or designee and stated, A single-purpose entity will be established for the purposes of this development, the principals of which will include Joseph F. Boulos, Gregory W. Boulos, Daniel M. Greenstein, and C. Anthony McDonald. The City Council was aware that a single-purpose entity  now, the LLC  would be organized pursuant to the proposal's terms. Because that entity had not been named beforehand, the City Council ordered the city manager to contract with the party that had submitted the proposal: Joseph F. Boulos and Partners. The subsequent execution of the contract by the LLC, rather than Boulos and Partners, does not invalidate or void the contract, which complies with the intent of the City's Order. The City Council made explicit its approval of the city manager's conduct when it ratified his execution of the purchase and sale agreement with the LLC by authorizing amendments to the agreement with the LLC after the LLC had filed its articles of incorporation. Cf. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 3 v. Maine Sch. Dist. Comm'n, 158 Me. 420, 427, 185 A.2d 744, 748 (1962) (The law is well settled that a committee, which has been given authority to make a certain contract on behalf of a municipal corporation, may ratify such a contract when made by a minority of its members.). [¶ 31] In sum, the stipulated facts do not demonstrate any procedural errors by the City that render the conditional purchase and sale agreement void or unenforceable. In these circumstances, the City is entitled to a judgment in its favor on Mason and Johnson's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The entry is: To the extent that the judgment dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is vacated and the matter is remanded for entry of a judgment for the defendants on the merits of the complaint. Denial of Mason and Johnson's motion for a preliminary injunction affirmed.