Rennick

Rennick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, Inc.

Good Law
77 F.3d 309·96 Daily Journal DAR 1966·1996 WL 74108·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2631·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1153
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 22, 1996No. 93-17105California4,207 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD.

We affirm a summary judgment. We conclude that the parties had not entered into a contract. The claims to the contrary rely on a handshake and a letter of intent. Though in appropriate circumstances, either or both could manifest agreement, here the express provisions of the letter of intent establish that, as a matter of law, no contract was made.

I. Facts.

O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, Inc., a California corporation, franchises home intravenous therapy services. These services include chemotherapy, nutrient infusions for patients unable to eat, and pain management infusions such as intravenous morphine.

The Rennicks, a physician in Oregon and an attorney in Canada, sought to become O.P.T.I.O.N.’s sole Canadian franchisee. Vantec, Inc., a Canadian firm, proposed to invest money in the project. Vantec had people with the experience and contacts to negotiate effectively with the Canadian government. Beginning in September of 1986, the Rennicks and Vantec negotiated with O.P.T.I.O.N. toward an exclusive Canadian franchise.

The Rennicks and Vantec argue that an agreement was reached at a meeting of the principals in British Columbia on July 3, 1990. Before the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.