Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite TNT Properties, Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers LLC, 677 N.W.2d 94.

32 citing documents.

James Dennis Omwenga, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
LLC, -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
LLC, (affirming district court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement despite incomplete and missing terms and stating that a “binding contract can exist despite the parties’ failure to agree on a term if the term is not essential or can be supplied”); Triple B & G, Inc. v. City of Fairmont
Zahn Law Firm, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As in all contracts, “there must be a definite offer and acceptance with a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: R. J. L., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See TNT Props., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Estate of: Steven C. Kukowski, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
TNT Prop s., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Krenske Construction, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
For a valid settlement agreement, “there must be a definite offer and acceptance with a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri–Star Developers LLC, -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Contract formation requires a “meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Paula Mirare Overby, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers, LLC
K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Tri -Star Developers LLC
Distinguished Doran Development, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-14 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Elizabeth Rocco v. Imran Khan, and third party v. Patrick J. Eastwood, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Elizabeth Rocco v. Imran Khan, and third party v. Patrick J. Eastwood, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because settlement agreements are contractual in nature, there must be a definite offer and an acceptance, resulting in a “meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Davis argues that the contract is ambiguous because “it failed to mention material issues such as when, where, and how the money would be paid.” Contract formation requires a “meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri–Star Developers LLC, –01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Corrine M. Fingalson v. George A. Carlson and Jeanette D. Carlson, individually and as trustees under the Carlson … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Corrine M. Fingalson v. George A. Carlson and Jeanette D. Carlson, individually and as trustees under the Carlson … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Generally, the existence of a contract, as well as the terms of that contract, are questions of fact to be determined by the fact-finder.” TNT Props.
Anita W. Sluck v. Terence E. Rapacz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Anita W. Sluck v. Terence E. Rapacz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As with any contract, “there must be a definite offer and acceptance with a meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the agreement.” TNT Props., -01 (Minn. App. 2004).
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Generally, the existence of a contract, as well as the terms of that contract, are questions of fact to be determined by the fact-finder.” TNT Props.
Isanti Estates, LLC v. McCarthy Well Company, McCullough & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a McCullough & Sons Well Drilling, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Isanti Estates, LLC v. McCarthy Well Company, McCullough & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a McCullough & Sons Well Drilling, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
& Entm’t Corp., (“The agreement necessary to form a contract need not be express, but may be implied from circumstances that clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention of the parties to enter into a contract.”); TNT Props., (“Minnesota follows the objective theory of contract formation, under which an outward manifestation of assent is determinative, rather than a party’s subjective intent.”).
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Generally, the existence of a contract, as well as the terms of that contract, are questions of fact to be determined by the fact-finder.” TNT Props., (citing Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Assocs., Inc. v. Rothchild, 302 Minn. 476, 480, ).
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
County of Hennepin v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 52.01; cf. TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers, LLC, (stating that when the relevant facts are undisputed, the existence of a contract is a question of law reviewed de novo).
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See TNT Props., (applying de novo review to a lack of mutual assent claim).
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Sitek v. Striker 764 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
We note that this court has held that “ ‘delay in a single installment payment is not the type of material breach or substantial failure of performance that cancels a contract for deed.’ ” TNT Props., (quoting Coddon, d at 43 ).
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by