Clarke Cnty. Dev. Corp. v. Affinity Gaming, No. 15-2032 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCCDC filed suit against Affinity to enforce a memorandum of understanding that was signed after a mediation. The district court concluded that no contract existed as a matter of law and granted summary judgment for Affinity. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of fact concerning whether board approval is a condition precedent that must be satisfied before the parties can enforce the memorandum of understanding. Whether board approval is a condition precedent thus cannot be resolved as a matter of law, and the case must be remanded for further proceedings. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The district court erred in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that a memorandum of understanding the parties signed after a mediation was not a contract as a matter of law; there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the parties' intent,including whether board approval was condition precedent that had to be satisfied before the parties could enforce the memorandum, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.