 |
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.
m (DeRien moved page Embry v. Hargadine, Mckittrick Dry Goods Co. to Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick: shorten) |
(Intent to be bound) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry. | Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry. | ||
|procedural_history=St. Louis Circuit Court found for | |procedural_history=St. Louis Circuit Court found for McKittrick. | ||
Embry appealed. | Embry appealed. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|judgment=Reversed. | |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. | |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 | |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 38: | Line 39: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Holding''': There was a contract. | '''Holding''': There was a contract. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:28, October 11, 2023
| Embry v. McKittrick | |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 |
| Date decided | November 5, 1907 |
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.
Embry's job was to select samples for the sales staff of McKittrick.
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.
Embry had a 1-year employment contract with McKittrick for $2,000/year.
Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry.Procedural History
St. Louis Circuit Court found for McKittrick.
Embry appealed.Issues
Are words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract sufficient to create a valid contract?
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
Resources
Holding: There was a contract.
