Bennett v. Itochu Int'l

In Bennett v. Itochu Int'l, the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that:

“

The party alleging the breach of an oral contract bears the burden of proving the existence of that contract with clear and precise evidence. Luther v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 408, 416 (W.D. Pa. 2009); see also Mackay v. Mackay, 2009 PA Super 219, 984 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009); Martin v. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 357, 368 (E.D. Pa. 1998). It is not enough to show preliminary negotiations or an agreement to enter into a binding contract in the future; to succeed, the party must prove that a mutual intent to be bound manifested, even though not memorialized in writing. Fetter, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99855 at *15 (citing ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Commc'ns, Inc., 155 F.3d 659, 666 (3d Cir. 1998)). The absence of a formalized agreement in writing does not prevent the enforcement of an agreement where the parties agree on the essential terms; however, for this to be true, an existing, later writing must be intended as a simple formality or as evidence documenting an earlier conclusive agreement. Id. at *18.

”

Bennett v. Itochu Int'l, Inc., No. 09-CV-1819, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119791, at *49-50 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2012).