Embry v. McKittrick
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Embry v. McKittrick | |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 |
| Date decided | November 5, 1907 |
Facts
- Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. = "McKittrick" = defendant = employer
- Mr. Embry = "Embry" = plaintiff = employee
- Embry was an employee of McKittrick under a written contract that expired December 15, 1903.
Embry's job was to select samples for the sales staff of McKittrick.
Embry says that on December 23, 1903, a new contract was created, hiring him for one more year. McKittrick says that no such contract was created.
Embry had a 1-year employment contract with McKittrick for $2,000/year.
Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry.Procedural History
St. Louis Circuit Court found for McKittrick.
Embry appealed.Issues
Are words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract sufficient to create a valid contract?
Arguments
Plaintiff (Embry) says that his boss (McKittrick) agreed to a year-long contract.
McKittrick argues that there was no such contract.Holding
Yes. Words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract are sufficient to create a valid contract.
Judgment
Reversed.
Reasons
Generally, there must be a "meeting of the minds" for a contract to be validly formed by both sides, but not always. As long as the words used were sufficient to constitute a contract, there is a contract.
Rule
Resources
Holding: There was a contract.
