Promise to Sell Confirmation Dispute

A party challenged a lower court's decision concerning an alleged breach of a promise to sell, arguing that the court improperly refused to admit evidence regarding the defendant's subsequent unilateral declaration of sale, which the appealing party considered a tacit agreement to the terms of the initial promise. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the lower court was justified in disregarding the subsequent declaration because the initial promise to sell was conditional upon the promisor confirming the sale price within a specific timeframe, and the appellant failed to establish that the subsequent declaration constituted a proper acceptance or confirmation that met the established contractual conditions, thus rendering the evidence irrelevant to proving the alleged contract formation.