
Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: September 8, 2017
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comIn the age of smart phones, business deals are frequently negotiated via email rather than traditional letter correspondence. While the use of technology certainly streamlines the process, it can also result in unintended liability.
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999, which is now in force in all 50 states, a contract “may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.” The statute also encourages courts to take a “liberal” approach when determining whether a series of emails should be considered a binding legal agreement.
In Stonehill Capital Management v. Bank of the West , 28 NY3d 439 (2016), the New York Court of Appeals ruled that an agreement to sell a distressed loan via the auction loan trading market was enforceable, even in the absence of a formally executed written contract. According to the court, the terms had been established and agreed upon through the documents and emails exchanged by the parties.
As detailed in the court’s opinion, Bank of the West (BOTW) solicited bids on a loan portfolio. The Offering Memorandum stated that the bids were non-contingent final offers that, if accepted by the seller, required execution by the bidder of a pre-negotiated asset sale agreement and an accompanying ten percent deposit. The Memorandum also stated that the loans sold at auction were “subject only to those representations and warranties explicitly stated in the asset sale agreement,” which was included in the Memorandum. Thus, the terms of the sale were pre-set.
In response, Stonehill Capital Management, LLC (Stonehill) submitted a bid. When BOTW accepted Stonehill’s offer, it confirmed the bid in a correspondence setting forth the sale price, the specific loan to be sold, the timing of the closing, and the manner of payment and wire transfer instructions. In subsequent correspondence, neither BOTW nor its counsel indicated that the “Loan Sale Agreement” (LSA) form or any modifications were unacceptable.
In future correspondence, counsel for BOTW did not mention any problems with the LSTA form that Stonehill had sent, but instead requested documentation from Stonehill to move the transaction along towards a mid-May closing date. Specifically, in one email thread, BOTW’s counsel said he was working on getting the documents to Stonehill the following Monday and requested a term sheet from a previous trade to further the process. After Stonehill responded that it could not return the term sheet requested because of confidentiality provisions, offering instead to send an LSTA form, BOTW’s counsel informed Stonehill that it could proceed as described.
BOTW ultimately decided not to go through will the sale, prompting Stonehill to file a breach of contract action. BOTW conceded that it accepted Stonehill’s bid and then refused to transfer the loan, but maintained it had no legal obligation to do so because the parties never executed a written sales agreement and Stonehill failed to submit a timely cash deposit.
The New York Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the “totality of the parties’ conduct, and the objective manifestations of the parties’ intent as evidenced by their expressed words and deeds, establishes as a matter of law the existence of the agreement.” As further explained by the court, “BOTW reconsidered the sale — not because of the failure to execute a written agreement or because Stonehill had not tendered the 10% deposit, but because BOTW concluded it would make more money by reneging on the sale. That choice was a breach of its agreement with Stonehill.”
Our attorneys have seen an increase in New Jersey and New York business litigation involving “high-tech” negotiations involving emails and text messages. To avoid a costly breach of contract lawsuit, below are five tips for negotiating a contract via email:
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Robert Levy, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
In the age of smart phones, business deals are frequently negotiated via email rather than traditional letter correspondence. While the use of technology certainly streamlines the process, it can also result in unintended liability.
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999, which is now in force in all 50 states, a contract “may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.” The statute also encourages courts to take a “liberal” approach when determining whether a series of emails should be considered a binding legal agreement.
In Stonehill Capital Management v. Bank of the West , 28 NY3d 439 (2016), the New York Court of Appeals ruled that an agreement to sell a distressed loan via the auction loan trading market was enforceable, even in the absence of a formally executed written contract. According to the court, the terms had been established and agreed upon through the documents and emails exchanged by the parties.
As detailed in the court’s opinion, Bank of the West (BOTW) solicited bids on a loan portfolio. The Offering Memorandum stated that the bids were non-contingent final offers that, if accepted by the seller, required execution by the bidder of a pre-negotiated asset sale agreement and an accompanying ten percent deposit. The Memorandum also stated that the loans sold at auction were “subject only to those representations and warranties explicitly stated in the asset sale agreement,” which was included in the Memorandum. Thus, the terms of the sale were pre-set.
In response, Stonehill Capital Management, LLC (Stonehill) submitted a bid. When BOTW accepted Stonehill’s offer, it confirmed the bid in a correspondence setting forth the sale price, the specific loan to be sold, the timing of the closing, and the manner of payment and wire transfer instructions. In subsequent correspondence, neither BOTW nor its counsel indicated that the “Loan Sale Agreement” (LSA) form or any modifications were unacceptable.
In future correspondence, counsel for BOTW did not mention any problems with the LSTA form that Stonehill had sent, but instead requested documentation from Stonehill to move the transaction along towards a mid-May closing date. Specifically, in one email thread, BOTW’s counsel said he was working on getting the documents to Stonehill the following Monday and requested a term sheet from a previous trade to further the process. After Stonehill responded that it could not return the term sheet requested because of confidentiality provisions, offering instead to send an LSTA form, BOTW’s counsel informed Stonehill that it could proceed as described.
BOTW ultimately decided not to go through will the sale, prompting Stonehill to file a breach of contract action. BOTW conceded that it accepted Stonehill’s bid and then refused to transfer the loan, but maintained it had no legal obligation to do so because the parties never executed a written sales agreement and Stonehill failed to submit a timely cash deposit.
The New York Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the “totality of the parties’ conduct, and the objective manifestations of the parties’ intent as evidenced by their expressed words and deeds, establishes as a matter of law the existence of the agreement.” As further explained by the court, “BOTW reconsidered the sale — not because of the failure to execute a written agreement or because Stonehill had not tendered the 10% deposit, but because BOTW concluded it would make more money by reneging on the sale. That choice was a breach of its agreement with Stonehill.”
Our attorneys have seen an increase in New Jersey and New York business litigation involving “high-tech” negotiations involving emails and text messages. To avoid a costly breach of contract lawsuit, below are five tips for negotiating a contract via email:
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Robert Levy, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!