Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.'', 552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977). '''Facts''': Parties agreed that Defendant would relocate Plaintiff if Plaintiff sold their part in of a...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|case_treatment=No | |||
}} | |||
''Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.'', 552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977). | ''Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.'', 552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977). | ||
| Line 10: | Line 13: | ||
#The parties intended to be bound, and | #The parties intended to be bound, and | ||
#There is a reasonable basis to determine a remedy. | #There is a reasonable basis to determine a remedy. | ||
[[:Category:Contract law|Category:Contract law]] | |||
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | ||
Revision as of 20:43, May 30, 2022
| Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977).
Facts: Parties agreed that Defendant would relocate Plaintiff if Plaintiff sold their part in of a liquor distribution company, but the relocation portion of the agreement was not in writing. Defendant claimed the relocation agreement was too vague to be enforceable.
Issue: Was the relocation agreement part of the contract to sell the distributorship?
Holding: No, that portion of the agreement was too vague and uncertain.
Rule: Two Prong Test:
- The parties intended to be bound, and
- There is a reasonable basis to determine a remedy.
