 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Rehm-Zeiher v. Walker: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=November 20, 1913 | |date=November 20, 1913 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=* Rehm-Zeiher (RZ) = a whiskey distributor = "Rehm" | |facts=*Rehm-Zeiher (RZ) = a whiskey distributor = "Rehm" | ||
* F.G. Walker (FGW) = a distiller = "Walker" | *F.G. Walker (FGW) = a distiller = "Walker" | ||
* In 1908, the 2 parties in Kentucky signed a contract for Walker to supply whiskey to Rehm | *In 1908, the 2 parties in Kentucky signed a contract for Walker to supply whiskey to Rehm | ||
*{{Timeline | |||
|Contract for Walker to supply 2,000 cases whiskey to distributor Rehm|2=1909 | |||
|3=1910 | |||
|4=3,000 cases | |||
|5=4,000 cases | |||
|6=1911 | |||
|7=1912 | |||
|8=5,000 cases | |||
}} | |||
*the contract specified that in the event of fire, Walker would be excused from making whiskey for the distributer Rehm | |||
*Rehm was also allowed to reduce its orders of whiskey | |||
*Rehm ordered | |||
**786 cases in 1909 | |||
**1,200 in 1910 | |||
**4,000 in 1911 | |||
***However, in 1911, Walker only delivered 1,044 cases & refused additional deliveries because the price had risen in the market while the contracted price/case was lower | |||
* | * | ||
* | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=Rehm sued Walker in Kentucky state court. | |||
Walker won in the trial court in a bench trial. | |||
|issues=Is a contract that lacks mutuality of obligation between the parties enforceable? | |||
|holding=No. A contract is un-enforceable if it lacks [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/mutuality-of-obligation mutuality of obligation]. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|reasons=* The contract gave Rehm to take as little or as many cases of whiskey as it chose. Therefore, the contract lacked mutuality of obligation. | |||
* This wasn't an option contract. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/rehm-zeiher-co-v-901852541 | |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/rehm-zeiher-co-v-901852541 | ||
Latest revision as of 00:18, December 28, 2023
| Rehm-Zeiher v. Walker | |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 160 S.W. 777,156 Ky. 6 |
| Date decided | November 20, 1913 |
Facts
- Rehm-Zeiher (RZ) = a whiskey distributor = "Rehm"
- F.G. Walker (FGW) = a distiller = "Walker"
- In 1908, the 2 parties in Kentucky signed a contract for Walker to supply whiskey to Rehm
1909
Contract for Walker to supply 2,000 cases whiskey to distributor Rehm
1910
3,000 cases
1911
4,000 cases
1912
5,000 cases
- the contract specified that in the event of fire, Walker would be excused from making whiskey for the distributer Rehm
- Rehm was also allowed to reduce its orders of whiskey
- Rehm ordered
- 786 cases in 1909
- 1,200 in 1910
- 4,000 in 1911
- However, in 1911, Walker only delivered 1,044 cases & refused additional deliveries because the price had risen in the market while the contracted price/case was lower
Procedural History
Rehm sued Walker in Kentucky state court.
Walker won in the trial court in a bench trial.Issues
Is a contract that lacks mutuality of obligation between the parties enforceable?
Holding
No. A contract is un-enforceable if it lacks mutuality of obligation.
Judgment
Affirmed
Reasons
- The contract gave Rehm to take as little or as many cases of whiskey as it chose. Therefore, the contract lacked mutuality of obligation.
- This wasn't an option contract.
Resources
