Zeising v. Shelton
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed because an enforceable oral contract was not mutually agreed upon by these parties. The acquisition, purchase and terms, of the 29 Popeye’s restaurants, how they would be operated and what — if any — consideration and role Zeising would contribute, was left wide open. At best, it could be said only that they agreed to agree, but that is not an enforceable contract under Louisiana or Georgia law. See McNeely v. Town of Vidalia, 157 La. 338, 102 So. 422, 423 (1924); Moss v. Moss, 265 Ga. 802, 463 S.E.2d 9 (1995). Likewise, Shelton did…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moss v. MossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
- McNeely v. Town of v. DaliaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1924
3Cited by50 opinions
- Shaw v. Restoration HardwareCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2024
- Zollicoffer v. LivingstonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2016
- A.G. v. Riverside Christian Ministries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2023
- Ali v. BeckerDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021
- Allen v. SimonDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2022
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.