Peet v. Randolph

I respectfully dissent. The primary issue before us is whether the contract contains a description of the land to be conveyed that is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. As a matter of law, it plainly does not. Additionally, there was no meeting of the minds regarding the right-of-first refusal provision. The trial court was correct on both grounds on which summary judgment was granted, and the judgment should be affirmed.

I

Taking the latter point first, the summary judgment record is indisputably clear that the parties had no actual meeting of the minds regarding the scope and…