Langley v. Autocraft, Inc.

Summary

The Court held that the agreement's provision granting Langley a 10% ownership interest was void for indefiniteness because its integrated financing terms omitted essential details, including price, payment timing, and payment mechanics. It therefore modified and affirmed the Business Court's summary-judgment order, concluding that neither quasi-estoppel nor the mend-the-hold doctrine could enforce the indefinite provision. The Court did not address an unjust-enrichment theory because Langley had never pleaded or argued that claim.