P. 1
Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. FG Walker Co.

Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. FG Walker Co.


|Views: 1,272|Likes:
Published by crlstinaaa

More info:

Published by: crlstinaaa on Apr 08, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less







Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. FG Walker Co. Plaintiff (appellant) - Rehm-Zeiger Defendant (appellee) - FG Walker


Procedural History: Action by plaintiff against defendant in circuit court. Judgment for defendant. Facts: Parties entered into a contract for Rehm to purchase whiskey from Walker. In 1909, 2000 cases to be delivered, in 1910 - 3000cases, 1911 - 4000 cases, 1912 - 5000 cases. Contract stated that if Walker's whiskey or bottling room should be lost by fire, they would be held excusable from fulfilling the contract. If buyer could not use the full amount of whiskey provided in the contract, Rehm would release them fro the contract. In 1909, only 786 of 2000 were delivered (per buyer's needs), 1910 - 1210 of 3000, In 1911, whiskey prices rose and buyer demanded full qty from contract. Walker only delivered 1044 of the 4000 cases stated in the contract. Rehm sued. Issue: Holding: Was there mutuality of obligation, needed to enforce this contract? lacking mutuality of obligation. Judgment affirmed for plaintiff.

Reasoning: Lack of mutuality - the buyer didn’t have to purchase the qty stated in the qty, b/c he could have plead some unforeseen reason to not purchase all, and from the terms of the contract, it would not have been enforceable. If the contract was not enforceable one way, then it was lacking mutuality of obligation and so rendered unenforceable by the plaintiff.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->