This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
McMichael v. Price: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Oklahoma Supreme Court | |court=Oklahoma Supreme Court | ||
|date= | |date=1936-5-5 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=McMichael (defendant) had sand mining operation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. | |facts=McMichael (defendant) had sand mining operation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
McMichael (supplier) agreed to supply all the sand that Price could sell over the next 10 years. Price would pay 60% of the market price at the sand's destination. | McMichael (supplier) agreed to supply all the sand that Price could sell over the next 10 years. Price would pay 60% of the market price at the sand's destination. | ||
After 5 months, McMichael refused to | After 5 months, McMichael refused to supply sands. | ||
|procedural_history=Price sued McMichael for breach of contract. | |procedural_history=Price sued McMichael for breach of contract. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mcmichael-v-price | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mcmichael-v-price | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| McMichael v. Price | |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | 1936-5-5 |
Facts
McMichael (defendant) had sand mining operation in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Mr. Price (plaintiff) bought sand locally in Tulsa & shipped it across the United States.
The 2 parties entered a requirements contract whereby McMichael would provide as much sand as Price required.
McMichael (supplier) agreed to supply all the sand that Price could sell over the next 10 years. Price would pay 60% of the market price at the sand's destination.
After 5 months, McMichael refused to supply sands.Procedural History
Price sued McMichael for breach of contract.
McMichael answered that the contract lacked Mutuality of Obligation. McMichael lost.Issues
Is a contract requiring a seller (McMichael) to provide as many goods as the buyer (Price) requires void for lack of Mutuality of Obligation?
Arguments
McMichael argued that the contract contained an illusory promise.
Holding
No. There is Mutuality of Obligation if the contract binds each party, making each party's performance mandatory, not discretionary.
Reasons
Price was obligated to only purchase sand from McMichael under the terms and conditions of the contract. Thus, Price couldn't have bought sand from other parties without breaching the contract.
