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
 
Line 8: Line 8:
*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
*{{Timeline
|2,000 cases of whiskey
|Contract for Walker to supply 2,000 cases whiskey to distributor Rehm|2=1909
|1=Contract for Walker to supply 2,000 cases whiskey to distributor Rehm
|2=1909
|3=1910
|3=1910
|4=3,000 cases
|4=3,000 cases
Line 19: Line 17:
}}
}}


* the contract specified that in the event of fire, Walker would be excused from making whiskey for the distributer Rehm
*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 was also allowed to reduce its orders of whiskey
* Rehm ordered  
*Rehm ordered
* 786 cases in 1909
**786 cases in 1909
* 1,200 in 1910
**1,200 in 1910
* 4,000 in 1911
**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
***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
*
*
*
*

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