Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Laclede v. Amoco: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Used numbered list for each separated issue) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=8th Circuit | |||
|citation=522 F.2d 33 | |||
|date=July 10, 1975 | |||
'''Issues''': | |subject=Contracts | ||
# Whether Laclede's right of cancellation rendered all its other promises in the agreement illusory so that there was a complete failure of consideration. | |facts=Leclede and Amoco entered into a contract by which Amoco would supply as much propane as Leclede required. Three years into the agreement, Amoco announced that they would stop service because the contract had no mutuality due to Leclede's cancellation clause. Leclede could cancel at any year-anniversary of the delivery beginning date, as long as notice of cancellation was submitted at least 30 days in advance of the cancellation date. | ||
# Whether or not the contract fails for lack of "mutuality of consideration" because Laclede did not expressly bind itself to order all of its propane requirements from Amoco. | |procedural_history=District court ruled that the contract was unenforceable due to lack of mutuality. | ||
# Is the proper remedy specific performance or damage? | |issues='''Issues''': | ||
#Whether Laclede's right of cancellation rendered all its other promises in the agreement illusory so that there was a complete failure of consideration. | |||
'''Holding''': There is consideration and mutuality. Laclede was bound by the contract to only purchase from Amoco. Specific performance is the proper remedy. | #Whether or not the contract fails for lack of "mutuality of consideration" because Laclede did not expressly bind itself to order all of its propane requirements from Amoco. | ||
#Is the proper remedy specific performance or damage? | |||
'''Reasons''': | |holding='''Holding''': There is consideration and mutuality. Laclede was bound by the contract to only purchase from Amoco. Specific performance is the proper remedy. | ||
# Because Leclede gained a legal detriment from the agreement there is mutuality. If the cancellation clause were unrestricted (if Laclede could cancel at any time for any reason), then there would be no legal detriment and therefore no mutuality. However, Laclede could only cancel under limit circumstances and a limited timeframe so the contract can't be invalidated by the cancellation clause alone. | |judgment=Reversed. | ||
# The contract is a requirement contract, that is, a contract by which Amoco would supply as much propane as Leclede required. That Leclede would buy only from Amoco wasn't explicitly in the contract doesn't matter; practice dictates that Amoco would be the only supplier. | |reasons='''Reasons''': | ||
# It's too difficult to determine the amount it would take to enter into a similar contract with another supplier, so specific performance is proper. | #Because Leclede gained a legal detriment from the agreement there is mutuality. If the cancellation clause were unrestricted (if Laclede could cancel at any time for any reason), then there would be no legal detriment and therefore no mutuality. However, Laclede could only cancel under limit circumstances and a limited timeframe so the contract can't be invalidated by the cancellation clause alone. | ||
#The contract is a requirement contract, that is, a contract by which Amoco would supply as much propane as Leclede required. That Leclede would buy only from Amoco wasn't explicitly in the contract doesn't matter; practice dictates that Amoco would be the only supplier. | |||
#It's too difficult to determine the amount it would take to enter into a similar contract with another supplier, so specific performance is proper. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/laclede-gas-co-v-amoco-oil-co | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/522/33/184057/ | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/laclede-gas-company-v-amoco-oil-company-3 | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] |
Revision as of 16:19, November 23, 2023
Laclede v. Amoco | |
Court | 8th Circuit |
---|---|
Citation | 522 F.2d 33 |
Date decided | July 10, 1975 |
Facts
Leclede and Amoco entered into a contract by which Amoco would supply as much propane as Leclede required. Three years into the agreement, Amoco announced that they would stop service because the contract had no mutuality due to Leclede's cancellation clause. Leclede could cancel at any year-anniversary of the delivery beginning date, as long as notice of cancellation was submitted at least 30 days in advance of the cancellation date.
Procedural History
District court ruled that the contract was unenforceable due to lack of mutuality.
Issues
Issues:
- Whether Laclede's right of cancellation rendered all its other promises in the agreement illusory so that there was a complete failure of consideration.
- Whether or not the contract fails for lack of "mutuality of consideration" because Laclede did not expressly bind itself to order all of its propane requirements from Amoco.
- Is the proper remedy specific performance or damage?
Holding
Holding: There is consideration and mutuality. Laclede was bound by the contract to only purchase from Amoco. Specific performance is the proper remedy.
Judgment
Reversed.
Reasons
Reasons:
- Because Leclede gained a legal detriment from the agreement there is mutuality. If the cancellation clause were unrestricted (if Laclede could cancel at any time for any reason), then there would be no legal detriment and therefore no mutuality. However, Laclede could only cancel under limit circumstances and a limited timeframe so the contract can't be invalidated by the cancellation clause alone.
- The contract is a requirement contract, that is, a contract by which Amoco would supply as much propane as Leclede required. That Leclede would buy only from Amoco wasn't explicitly in the contract doesn't matter; practice dictates that Amoco would be the only supplier.
- It's too difficult to determine the amount it would take to enter into a similar contract with another supplier, so specific performance is proper.