| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Infobox Case Brief
| | '''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. |
| |court=Missouri Court of Appeals
| |
| |citation=127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777
| |
| |date=November 5, 1907
| |
| |subject=Contracts
| |
| |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.
| | '''Procedural History''': Trial Court found for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. |
|
| |
|
| Embry's job was to select samples for the sales staff of McKittrick.
| | '''Issue''': Was there really a contract? |
|
| |
|
| 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.
| | '''Arguments''': Plaintiff says that his boss agreed to a year-long contract. Defendant says that there was no such contract. |
|
| |
|
| Embry had a 1-year employment contract with McKittrick for $2,000/year.
| | '''Holding''': There was a contract. |
|
| |
|
| Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry.
| | '''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. |
| |procedural_history=St. Louis Circuit Court found for McKittrick.
| |
|
| |
|
| Embry appealed.
| | '''Judgment''': Reversed. |
| |issues=Are words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract sufficient to create a valid contract?
| | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] |
| |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=[https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/intent-to-be-bound Intent to be bound]
| |
| |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| |
| |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-dry-goods-co
| |
| |source_type=Video summary
| |
| |case_text_source=Quimbee
| |
| }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| |
| |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-899834918
| |
| |case_text_source=v lex
| |
| }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
| |
| |link=https://courtroomcast.lexisnexis.com/acf_cases/8559-embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-dry-goods-co-
| |
| |case_text_source=LexisNexis
| |
| }}
| |
| }}
| |
| '''Holding''': There was a contract. | |
