Search for: "Norkunas v. Cochran" Results 1 - 4 of 4
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2015, 7:11 am
 Further, where the letter of intent is unambiguous and constitutes an enforceable contract, it is unnecessary to have a plenary hearing on the merits of a motion to enforce a settlement agreementFacts: The appeal arose out of the execution of a letter of intent which was the result of the settlement of litigation over the contested ownership of parking spaces.Analysis:  Distinguishing Cochran v Norkunas, which held that the parties did not intend to be… [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 10:55 am by SueLyn Athey
Falls Homeowners Association, Inc., 441 Md. 290, 107 A.3d 1183 (Md. 2015). [2] Cochran v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm by Mahmoud Khatib
”[44] If a letter of intent falls within the first or second category, courts generally do not consider it binding; but if it falls in the third or fourth category, courts generally consider it a binding contract.[45] For example, in Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. [read post]