Harte v. Bridgewater
In a series of transactions which the trial court aptly characterized as “very convoluted†and “confusing,†appellant Gary Bridgewater and respondent Jack Harte sought to acquire equity interests in a firearms business owned by Tyler Jones, a licensed firearms dealer. In April 2008, all three parties signed a written agreement purporting to allocate interests in the business, with Harte receiving cash from Bridgewater and a promissory note from Bridgewater and Jones. Neither Harte nor Bridgewater held a firearms license. Jones ultimately sold the store’s inventory without notice to Harte or Bridgewater, closed the business and absconded. Harte then sued Bridgewater and Jones seeking to recover on the promissory note, and Bridgewater cross-complained for rescission and restitution of the cash paid to Harte. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted judgment to Harte on the promissory note, and denied recovery to Bridgewater.
We conclude that the parties’ agreement was an illegal contract that recognized ownership in and transferred ownership to persons who were not licensed to own or operate a firearms dealership. Therefore, the contract is unenforceable and neither Harte nor Bridgewater is entitled to relief.[1]
Comments on Harte v. Bridgewater