 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Embry v. McKittrick: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(https://www.quimbee.com/cases/embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-dry-goods-co) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Missouri Court of Appeals | ||
|citation=127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 | |citation=127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 | ||
|date=1907 | |date=1907 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|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. | |||
|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. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-dry-goods-co | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/embry-v-hargadine-mckittrick-dry-goods-co | ||
| Line 10: | Line 13: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Issue''': Was there really a contract? | '''Issue''': Was there really a contract? | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
'''Holding''': There was a contract. | '''Holding''': There was a contract. | ||
'''Judgment''': Reversed. | '''Judgment''': Reversed. | ||
Revision as of 14:45, October 11, 2023
| Embry v. McKittrick | |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 |
| 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.
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.
Resources
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.
Judgment: Reversed.
