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.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
| | |citation=552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977) | ||
|subject=Contracts | |||
|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. | |||
|issues=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 | #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. | ||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | 552 F.2d 447 (2d. Cir. 1977) |
| Date decided | |
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.
Issues
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.
