Editing Rehm-Zeiher v. Walker

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Kentucky Court of Appeals
|citation=160 S.W. 777,156 Ky. 6
|date=November 20, 1913
|subject=Contracts
|facts=*Rehm-Zeiher (RZ) = a whiskey distributor = "Rehm"
*F.G. Walker (FGW) = a distiller = "Walker"
*In 1908, the 2 parties in Kentucky signed a contract for Walker to supply whiskey to Rehm
*{{Timeline
|2,000 cases of whiskey
|1=Contract for Walker to supply 2,000 cases whiskey to distributor Rehm
|2=1909
|3=1910
|4=3,000 cases
|5=4,000 cases
|6=1911
|7=1912
|8=5,000 cases
}}

* the contract specified that in the event of fire, Walker would be excused from making whiskey for the distributer Rehm
* Rehm was also allowed to reduce its orders of whiskey
* Rehm ordered 
* 786 cases in 1909
* 1,200 in 1910
* 4,000 in 1911
* However, in 1911, Walker only delivered 1,044 cases & refused additional deliveries because the price had risen in the market while the contracted price/case was lower
*
*

*
|procedural_history=Rehm sued Walker in Kentucky state court.

Walker won in the trial court in a bench trial.
|issues=Is a contract that lacks mutuality of obligation between the parties enforceable?
|holding=No. A contract is un-enforceable if it lacks [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/mutuality-of-obligation mutuality of obligation].
|judgment=Affirmed
|reasons=* The contract gave Rehm to take as little or as many cases of whiskey as it chose. Therefore, the contract lacked mutuality of obligation.
* This wasn't an option contract.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/rehm-zeiher-co-v-901852541
|case_text_source=v lex
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/rehm-zeiher-co-v-f-g-walker-co
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=BYkZD7_E0eY
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=at11qH3mA-M
}}
}}