McLaughlin v. Heikkila

OPINION

DIETZEN, Judge.

Appellants brought this action for specific performance of a contract to purchase respondent’s real estate. The district court determined that no contract had been formed between the parties and granted respondent’s motion. to dismiss. Because we see no error of law in the dismissal, we affirm.

FACTS

On August 15, 2003, respondent Wilbert Heikkila signed an agreement with Kangas Realty to sell eight parcels of Heikkila’s property. On September 8, 2003, appellant David McLaughlin met with a Kangas agent who drafted, by hand, McLaughlin’s offer to purchase three of the…