Embry v. McKittrick: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "'''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,...")
 
(Intent to be bound)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''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.
{{Infobox Case Brief
|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


'''Procedural History''': Trial Court found for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
*Embry was an employee of McKittrick under a written contract that expired December 15, 1903.  


'''Issue''': Was there really a contract?
Embry's job was to select samples for the sales staff of McKittrick.


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


'''Holding''': There was a contract.
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.


'''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.
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.  


'''Judgment''': Reversed.
McKittrick argues that there was no such contract.
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]]
|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.

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

Intent to be bound

Resources

Holding: There was a contract.

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Embry_v._McKittrick&oldid=47463"