Rehm-Zeiher v. Walker
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| 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
