Uncertain lease terms and a "subject to" clause can show only preliminary negotiations, not a contract for specific performance.

A document referring to execution of a regular lease and using the expression "subject to" was treated as a preliminary arrangement rather than a final bargain, because its terms were too uncertain to be reduced into a formal lease without further assent. On that reasoning, the instrument was not a concluded and enforceable agreement capable of specific performance, as the parties had not yet reached binding consensus on all essential terms. The source text states that specific performance could not be ordered and that the appeal succeeded while the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the document relied upon by the plaintiff amounted to a concluded and enforceable agreement capable of specific performance.

Analysis: The terms of the document were held to be too uncertain to be reduced into a formal lease, and the reference to execution of a regular lease showed that further assent was still required before a binding contract could arise. The wording "subject to" was treated as introducing a condition or proviso, so the instrument was regarded as the product of preliminary negotiations rather than a final bargain capable of specific enforcement.

Conclusion: The agreement was not concluded and specific performance could not be ordered; the appeal succeeded and the suit was dismissed.

---