Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., 542 P.2d 817.

80 citing documents.

Giglio v. Mirshahzadeh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Giglio v. Mirshahzadeh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“[F]or an enforceable contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Regal Homes, ¶ 29 (App. 2007) (quoting Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., ).
Ricotta v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ricotta v. Fortin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., Inc.
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Co., (“It is elementary that for an enforceable contract to exist there must be .
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Co., (for an enforceable contract to exist, there must be “an offer, acceptance, consideration, a sufficiently specific statement of the parties’ obligations, and mutual assent”).
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
But “for an enforceable contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., Inc.
Bamford v. Toll Brothers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Bamford v. Toll Brothers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶10 An enforceable contract requires “’an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.’” Regal Homes, ¶ 29 (App. 2007) (quoting Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., (emphasis added in Regal Homes)).
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Buckholtz v. Buckholtz 435 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co. , , 394, , 819 (1975) ).
Barkley v. Icep Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Barkley v. Icep Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 “[F]or an enforceable contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co.
Offerman v. Granada 418 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Offerman v. Granada 418 P.3d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., Inc., ("[T]he court's role is not that of contract maker.
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Deepwater v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Deepwater v. Wells Fargo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The purported contract for insurance must be supported by “sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Regal Homes, ¶ 29, (quoting Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., ).
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (emphasis added); see also K-Line Builders, Inc. v. First Fed.
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
3 MERITAGE v. BINGHAM Decision of the Court contract requires: (1) an offer; (2) an acceptance; (3) consideration and (4) “sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co.
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Leflet v. Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance 247 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Constr., , , (holding that an attorney-proffered offer may bind the client).
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
633 (1913) (ordinance conferring a street franchise created a valid and binding contract, enforceable according to its terms); Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., , (enforceable contract must include an offer, acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specificity of terms); Globe Sch.
Regal Homes, Inc. v. CNA Insurance 171 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Regal Homes, Inc. v. CNA Insurance 171 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“It is elementary that for an enforceable contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of terms so that the obligations involved can be ascertained.” Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Const. Co., , (emphasis added).
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
AROK Construction Co. v. Indian Construction Services 848 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
During our consideration of this matter, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the impact, if any, of the Arizona Supreme Court’s , on the application of Savoca Masonry v. Homes & Son Construction Co., , to the instant appeal.
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogus v. Lords 804 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In support of this contention, appellants rely on Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Construction Co., , which involved an action by one masonry company against another for the latter’s breach of contract established by the bylaws of the Arizona Masonry Association.
Sosa v. Marine Midland Automotive Financial Corp. 763 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Sosa v. Marine Midland Automotive Financial Corp. 763 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The facts, considered in the light most favorable to appellants, see Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Sons Construction Co., Inc., , show that there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts and that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club 757 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Savoca Masonry Co. Inc. v. Homes & Son Const. Co. Inc., , see also Bartley v. Augusta Country Club, Inc., 166 Ga.
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by