This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v. Farmers' Lumber Co.: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Facts''': Plaintiff agreed to deliver coal to Defendant for a certain amount per ton, as much as Defendant would want. Plaintiff delivered but Defendant wanted more. '''Proc...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Arguments''': Defendant said that it had to pay for more coal for additional cost so Plaintiff owes damages. | '''Arguments''': Defendant said that it had to pay for more coal for additional cost so Plaintiff owes damages. | ||
'''Holding''': There was a lack of mutuality. | '''Holding''': There was a lack of mutuality, so no enforceable contract. | ||
'''Reasons''': Plaintiff was under no obligation to supply a certain minimum amount of coal. Defendant didn't provide consideration in the agreement because it didn't restrict its legal options because it could buy as much or as little as it wanted. Contract is not enforceable. | '''Reasons''': Plaintiff was under no obligation to supply a certain minimum amount of coal. Defendant didn't provide consideration in the agreement because it didn't restrict its legal options because it could buy as much or as little as it wanted. Contract is not enforceable. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:42, October 27, 2011
Facts: Plaintiff agreed to deliver coal to Defendant for a certain amount per ton, as much as Defendant would want. Plaintiff delivered but Defendant wanted more.
Procedural History: Plaintiff filed demurrer, which was overruled. Plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Whether there is a lack of mutuality--and thus a valid contract.
Arguments: Defendant said that it had to pay for more coal for additional cost so Plaintiff owes damages.
Holding: There was a lack of mutuality, so no enforceable contract.
Reasons: Plaintiff was under no obligation to supply a certain minimum amount of coal. Defendant didn't provide consideration in the agreement because it didn't restrict its legal options because it could buy as much or as little as it wanted. Contract is not enforceable.
Judgment: Reversed.
