Ecore Int'l v. Downey
From Conservapedia
In Ecore Int'l v. Downey, a district court in Pennsylvania held that:
| “ | The party relying on an alleged oral contract—in this case, Downey—has the burden of proving its existence. See Edmondson v. Zetusky, 674 A.2d 760, 764 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). "To establish the existence of an agreement one must show that: (1) both parties have manifested an intention to be bound by the terms of the agreement; (2) the terms of the agreement are sufficiently definite to be specifically enforced; and, (3) there is mutuality of consideration." Redick v. Kraft, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 296, 300 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (citing Channel Home Ctrs. v. Grossman, 795 F.2d 291, 298-99 (3d Cir. 1986)); see also Szymanski v. Sacchetta, No. 10-2336, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9315, 2012 WL 246249, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2012) (setting forth elements of enforceable contract). "For a contract to be enforceable, the nature and extent of the mutual obligations must be certain, and the parties must have agreed on the material and necessary details of their bargain." [1][2] | ” |
References
- ↑ Ecore Int'l, Inc. v. Downey, 343 F. Supp. 3d 459, 486-87 (E.D. Pa. 2018). https://casetext.com/case/ecore-intl
- ↑ Lackner v. Glosser, 2006 PA Super 14, 892 A.2d 21, 30 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1292300.html
