James Strait sued William Reid for specific performance of a lease. Following discovery, Reid moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parties never had a meeting of the minds and therefore no enforceable contract existed. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Reid. Strait appeals, enumerating ten errors. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the men agreed on terms, and therefore we reverse. Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Preferred Real Estate Equities v. Housing Systems , 248 Ga. App. 745 548 SE2d 646 2001. Further, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must give the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom must be construed most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp. , 187 Ga. App. 594, 595-596 370 SE2d 843 1988. On motions for summary judgment, however, courts cannot resolve the facts or reconcile the issues. Fletcher v. Amax , Inc., 160 Ga. App. 692, 695 288 SE2d 49 1981. When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc. , 229 Ga. App. 160, 163 1 493 SE2d 540 1997.
Both parties agree that Strait, an orthodontist, rented office space from Reid, a dentist who practiced out of another suite in his building. Additional space became available in Reid’s building in December 2000, which Strait wanted to rent. Reid prepared a proposed lease and gave Strait a copy on December 13, 2000, and the men met to discuss the terms on December 27, 2000.
