AROK Const. Co. v. Indian Const. Services

174 Ariz. 291 (1993)

848 P.2d 870

AROK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDIAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, a joint venture between Evcor Builders, Inc., Jeremiah La Mesa and Jane Doe La Mesa, Defendants-Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

February 11, 1993.

“The enforcement of incomplete agreements is a necessary fact of economic life. Business people are not soothsayers, and can neither provide in advance for every unforseen contingency nor answer every unasked question regarding a commercial agreement. This is especially so with a complex contract for a major construction project. Nor are entrepreneurs perfect at drafting legal documents. Finally, parties may want to bind themselves and at the same time desire to leave some matters open for future resolution in order to maintain flexibility. Thus, courts are often presented with incomplete bargains when the parties intend and desire to be bound. See Gillian Hadfield, Problematic Relations: Franchising and the Law of Incomplete Contracts, 42 STAN.L.REV. 927 (1990). Refusing the enforcement of obligations the parties intended to create and that marketplace transactions require hardly seems the solution.”

In: leagle

Puntuación: 0 / Votos: 0

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *