Court Opinion

ID: 9456731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:01:07.163343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:05.151492
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(dissenting) :
I dissent and vote to affirm the decision of the district court.
I agree with the majority that the district court was correct in finding that there were sufficient memoranda to take all twelve of the new leasing agreements —including Springfield — out of the statute of frauds. Except for Springfield, the question is an easy one because there are a number of writings which refer to the new leases at the other eleven stores and describe their essential terms. When taken together, the Fortgang interoffice memorandum of February 12, 1969, the eleven letter agreements dated February 28, 1969, and the signed Shor letter to Babdo Sales of April 7, 1969 establish a contractual relationship between the parties, supply all of the material terms of the new leases, and are sufficient to take the eleven contracts out of the statute of frauds.
The statute of frauds with regard to the Springfield lease is more difficult due to the fact that the only specific written reference to that agreement was in the Fortgang memorandum which did not furnish many of the essential terms of the agreement but merely asserted that appellant had committed itself to twelve licensing agreements, including Springfield, which would be effective in a week. However, a close look at the history of the business relationship between the parties indicated that the Fortgang note was only a small part of the documentation and definition of the legal relationship between the parties at the Springfield store. The parties had done business for more than eight years, and since 1966 their license agreement for each individual store has been merely a restatement of the standard terms which apply at all of the other stores where Babdo Sales has leased space from Miller-Wohl. The standard terms are, in effect, “boiler plate” provisions and the record shows that the parties intended to apply these terms to Springfield as well as to their other stores.1
When Miller-Wohl’s Springfield store opened in March of 1969, Babdo Sales moved in and commenced its operations there. From that time the parties have applied the uniform provisions to their relationship in Springfield.2 Since the parties have used the same standard terms in all predecessor license agreements since 1966 and the parties have applied them at Springfield, they should be treated as an integral part of the Springfield agreement despite the fact *968that there was no formal writing of these standard terms specifically for the Springfield store. When these uniform terms are read in conjunction with the Fortgang memorandum of February 12, 1969 they are sufficient to take the Springfield agreement out of the statute of frauds.
While I agree with the majority’s treatment of the statute of limitations question, we part ways when they reach the conclusion that there is a disputed question of fact regarding the parties’ contractual intent which compels remand of the case to the district court. The district court carefully reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, and the deposition testimony and exhibits which were filed in connection with the respective motions for summary judgment. After having done this, Judge Bonsai determined that Miller-Wohl intended to be bound by the new leases and that Babdo Sales was entitled to summary judgment. His opinion of August 4, 1970, granting summary judgment to plaintiff, includes the following statement:
* * * Shor, an agent of defendant, indicated in his letter to plaintiff defendant’s assent to an existing oral agreement and that defendant had taken actions, terminating the old agreements, rendering final accountings thereunder, and initiating new ones, which in addition to the reference to ‘our agreement’ clearly show that defendant considered itself bound by the oral agreement.3
Appellant’s only argument to dispute its contractual intent to enter into the twelve new leases is the assertion that the parties never intended their agreements to be binding until they had been signed by both parties and that the new lease agreements of February 28, 1969 were not binding because they had not been signed by appellees. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Appellants’ assertion that they did not intend to be bound until both parties had signed is contradicted by their own conduct, by the history of their prior business relations with Babdo Sales, and by the deposition statements of one of their important executives.
Miller-Wohl must have believed that the new leases had taken effect on March 1, 1969 because it increased the rental payments as of that date to the new rates even though the formal license agreements dated February 28, 1969 had not yet been sent to appellees or signed by them. Moreover, prior to consummation of the 1969 negotiations the parties had an eight year history of business relations during which Babdo Sales began new operations and continued operations for months where formal agreements had not been drawn up or expired leases had not been renewed. In one instance Babdo Sales operated for more than one year in a Miller-Wohl store before any formal lease was drawn up or an expired lease was extended. Finally, Leonard L. Nieman, Miller-Wohl’s comptroller and one of its chief negotiators, admitted in his deposition that in a number of instances where license agreements with Babdo Sales had expired, the parties continued to operate after the formal expiration date and when extension agreements were finally drawn up, they were viewed as “a simple formalizing of something that had in fact taken place already.”
An evaluation of the objective manifestations of appellant’s intent— their conduct as well as their correspondence — leads to the conclusion that the only doubt which they had regarding the validity of the new licensing agreements came as an afterthought when a *969new management took over control of Miller-Wohl and decided that in the future Miller-Wohl would operate its own departments rather than license others. The executives of appellant were instructed as to this new policy-in a memorandum dated May 5, 1969. Since the new leases took effect on March 1, 1969, the doubt as to their wisdom on the part of Miller-Wohl’s new management in April or May does not make the parties’ intent to enter into the new agreements a disputed issue of fact.
After carefully considering the deposition statements, exhibits and testimony before him the district judge found no triable issues of fact, a proposition which was pressed upon him by both parties. Appellant clearly could not prevail at trial on the issue of its contractual intent unless it has some cogent new evidence on this point; but it makes no allegation that it has any such evidence. Under these circumstances, remanding this case only serves to prolong this litigation needlessly.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

. The parties intended to apply the standard 1966 terms to the operations of the Springfield store. In 1969 they negotiated standard percentage and fixed monthly rentals to apply to Springfield as well as to the other eleven stores. As a result, the cost to Babdo Sales of occupying the Springfield store is determined on the same basis as at the other eleven stores.

. The amount of space which Babdo Sales has occupied at Miller-Wohl’s Springfield store is in the neighborhood of 1,800 square feet excluding the aisles and over 2,000 square feet when aisle space is included. The standard lease agreements for the past five years have provided for a 2,000 foot licensed area.

. Appellant does make the argument at one point that Shor was only a minor official of Miller-YYohl who had no authority to' bind the Company to the new leases. This argument is frivolous in view of the fact that both of appellant’s officers, Niemnn and Fortgang, instructed him to send the letter of April 7, 1969. Hotel Woodward Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 258 F. 322, 330 (2d Cir. 1919), same case The St. Paul, 271 F. 265 (2d Cir. 1921).