Court Opinion

ID: 9463063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:57:21.760328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:55.238432
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff’s pleaded cause of action is based exclusively on the letter guaranty set out in the majority opinion.9
We do not have before us a situation where the person tendered the guaranty acted in reliance upon it without comment. In our case, Ralston flatly rejected the guaranty as written and as supplemented by the interpretation agreement, which clarified paragraph one but did not meet Nabisco’s objections. The evidence is conclusive that there was no meeting of minds on the letter agreement or any other written guaranty. Nabisco was specifically advised that Ralston found the letter agreement unacceptable and wrote thereon “needs to be revised.”
There is no substantial evidence to support a finding that Ralston accepted the guaranty pleaded.10
The threshold determination that no valid guaranty has been established makes it unnecessary to consider other issues raised and answered by the majority and I express no view thereon.
Nabisco has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment by timely motions for directed verdict and judgment n. o. v. I would reverse and *690remand with directions to dismiss the complaint.

. The issue of an oral guaranty and its effectiveness in light of the Statute of Frauds is not before us.

. Why Ralston signed the purchase contract without a guaranty is immaterial to the issues here. The evidence reflects that Ralston for tax purposes was in a hurry to complete the sale and may well have relied on Nabisco’s representation that a mutually satisfactory guaranty agreement could be worked out.