The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Hunt (P) sought to acquire the assets of Eastern Can Company. The stock of Eastern was owned by Doliner (D). D and his family owned 73% of the stock of Eastern Can. Negotiations resulted in an early stage agreement to pay almost $6 million in cash or Hunt stock for P's stock. Several important items remained including the form of the acquisition, and the negotiations were recessed for several weeks. P became concerned that D would shop its bid and requested an option for P to buy all of D's stock at $5.50 per share. The option was prepared and signed by D and the family. The option was to be exercised by giving notice on or before June 1, 1965, and if notice was not given, the option was void but if given P had to pay the price and D had to deliver the stock in seven days. P paid $1,000 for that option. D claims that when his counsel called attention to the fact that the option was unconditional, he obtained a verbal understanding that it was to be used only in the event that D solicited an outside bid as was originally agreed and that P insisted that unless the option was signed in unconditional form, negotiations would terminate. P contends that there was no such condition. Following the resumption of the negotiations, and their failure, P exercised the option. D objected. P moved for a summary judgment based on the parol evidence rule. It was granted, and D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.