Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lancey Howard
It is totally incorrect that oral contracts are not good.

North Carolina law recognizes oral contracts. It is correct that it has to be more than “he said, she said”.

Supporting documents, chain of events that reflect past business practice between two parties, etc.

I know. I recently won a rather large case based on oral contract.

However, where I suspect Citigroup is dead in the water is that the WB stockholders had to approve their buyout and have not done so. Therefore, it was not a done deal.

Further, there is no way a WB stockholder will take their deal now that WFC has made this offer.

If City runs it in the ground, all that will happen is that the WB stockholders will vote to reject them and then vote to accept the WFC offer.

So someone is off the track.

18 posted on 10/03/2008 9:22:18 AM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: old curmudgeon

Having participated in a few deals, I can’t imagine that there were not “terms sheets” circulated from the outset. Generally with disclaimers about not being binding, etc., but the terms sheets outline the deal on the major points that will be reflected in the final contract.

The question becomes was there a meeting of the minds and a binding agreement. Depending on how far the negotiations went, this could be similar to Pennzoil/Texaco case in the early 1980’s. There was a drafted but unsigned contract in that case but I doubt things had progressed to that stage with Citigroup, just given the time frame.

Jack

Jack


22 posted on 10/03/2008 9:35:26 AM PDT by JackOfVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson