Opinion ID: 2334962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Parties Reach an Agreement?

Text: Meanwhile, the Developers and Insignia began negotiating the terms of an agreement that would govern their relationship. The first draft of the engagement letter is dated October 17, 2002. This draft discusses a recapitalization but does not mention a sale. Throughout October 2002, the parties exchanged drafts of this engagement letter. Although each sequential draft contains changes, the fundamental purpose of the collaborationto achieve recapitalization of the Property seems to remain the same. Insignia and the Developers met again on January 7, 2003, to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of [Insignia's] engagement with 1899[LLC]. According to Insignia, Rector conduct[ed] the discussion on behalf of [1899 LLC] and the parties reached an agreement on the terms dealing with any carve-outs, the services provided, the fees associated with those services, the duration of the agreement, and compensation. By the conclusion of the meeting, everybody said that we are satisfied with those fee amounts and that the next step would be to put it into a document. Insignia claims that these terms were memorialized in the agreement that was executed by Walt Rector. During early February 2003, the parties exchanged different versions of the draft engagement letter. The version at issue here is dated February 13, 2003, and was transmitted by Insignia to the Developers on February 20, 2003 (the February 20th Letter). Under its terms, the Developers would exclusively engage[ ] Insignia to identify, structure and negotiate the recapitalization of the above-referenced Property. Insignia would promptly commence and diligently prosecute obtaining required financing. . . . The letter mentioned a permanent loan, mezzanine financing, or joint venture equity as potential options, and 1899 LLC would authorize[ ] Insignia to offer the Property for such financing[.] It also included a formula for paying Insignia for all efforts, including all analysis, recommendations, marketing support and any other required consultation by Insignia professionals . . . [provided] financing is obtained. . . . [4] On the other hand, [i]f [1899 LLC] chooses not to enter into an Agreement for the refinancing of the Property, [1899 LLC] will not owe Insignia any compensation whatsoever for our services hereunder. The February 20th Letter did not mention a sale of the property. In fact, the words purchase, sale, buyer, and seller do not appear in any portion of the letter. Although Spitz and Insignia had discussed a group known as WestWind [5] a week earlier, the February 20th Letter did not list WestWind as a carve-out from the formula for compensating Insignia. [6] Rather, the letter was silent with regard to any potential transaction with WestWind. The parties dispute whether they agreed to the terms of the February 20th Letter. Insignia never signed the document, but claims to have advised the Developers that it fully agreed and assented to the terms set forth [therein] when it e-mailed the letter to them on February 20, 2003. Although Rector signed the letter and faxed it back to Insignia on that same day, he stated in a cover memo that [m]y execution and delivery to you is contingent upon your receipt of this engagement letter signed by [Spitz]. Rector concluded his cover memo with the exhortation, Let's go get this job done. Insignia claims that Spitz orally acknowledged that the parties had reached an agreement on multiple occasions between February 20th and March 5th, but concedes that he never actually signed the February 20th Letter. [7]