Embry v. Hargadine, Mckittrick Dry Goods Co.

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 18:26, February 1, 2020 by Mitchman (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Embry v. Hargadine, Mckittrick Dry Goods Co.
Court St. Louis Court of Appeals
Citation 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 (1907)
Date decided 1907

Facts: Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant under a written contract that expired December 15, 1903. Plaintiff says that on December 23, 1903, a new contract was created, hiring him for one more year. Defendant says that no such contract was created. Plaintiff was let go by Defendant in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between Plaintiff's boss and himself.

Procedural History: Trial Court found for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue: Was there really a contract?

Arguments: Plaintiff says that his boss agreed to a year-long contract. Defendant says that there was no such contract.

Holding: There was a contract.

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.

Judgment: Reversed.