Indeed, at one time one of defendant's vice presidents wrote to plaintiff:
'If you can get a written proposal to sell the building for one million dollars, I am sure that it will have favorable consideration here at that price, but we are not interested in discussing a price in excess of that.'
This is the closest defendant came to offering to buy the property, but it did not amount to a commitment. It is clear from the by-laws of defendant corporation that no vice president alone, and no other officer alone, had the right to commit defendant to the purchase of real estate. Defendant corporation could be committed to the purchase of real estate only after action by its Board of Directors after approval by defendant's real estate committee. It turned out that defendant's vice president was incorrect in his estimate of what the defendant would do about the purchase of the building. The directors, as they had a right to do, decided not to purchase the building. Plaintiff never got the parties together in an agreement for the sale of the building. He performed no valuable service for defendant for which he should be paid.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial the judge entered a general verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff has filed motions (1) to set aside the verdict and judgment, (2) for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) for a new trial.
The motion to set aside the verdict is based upon the court's alleged failure to file specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. This motion must be denied because the court did make and file specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Besides, during the course of the trial counsel for both sides agreed that at the conclusion of the trial the trial judge could enter a general verdict, and they waived their right to specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The motion by plaintiff for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law also must be denied for the reason that the suggested additional findings and conclusions could be inconsistent with the correct findings and conclusions which were filed shortly after the trial.
Likewise there is no good reason to grant plaintiff's motion for a new trial. It also will be denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.