Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
St. Louis Court of Appeals - 127 Mo. App. 383
Tags: Contracts, Mutual assent
See also: Lucy v. Zehmer
tl;dr:
Employee thinks that his contract was renewed based on a convo with the company president, but the company fires him a few weeks later.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1907 case of Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co., the Missouri Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a breach of contract claim for the alleged renewal of an employment contract. Charles Embry, the plaintiff, had a contract with the defendant company which ended on December 15, 1903. He said that the company's president, Thomas McKittrick, had agreed to renew this contract on December 23 through a conversation where McKittrick told Embry, "Go ahead, you are all right." However, the defendant company denied that there was a contract renewal and fired Embry on March 31, 1904.
Embry sued for breach of contract and lost wages, but the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that there was no mutual assent or "meeting of the minds." Embry then appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision.
The Court of Appeals found that in this case, a valid contract was formed based on the outward expression of assent, not the subjective intention of the parties. It held that McKittrick's words and actions would make a reasonable person believe a contract was made, and Embry accepted the offer by continuing to work for the company.
This case highlights legal principles in contract formation and interpretation and is relevant for understanding rights and obligations in contract disputes.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
This case involves a dispute over the validity of an alleged re-employment of an employee after the expiration of his written contract. The court is tasked with determining whether a conversation between the parties constituted a valid contract. The court held that the formation of a contract depends on the expressed intention of the parties, as determined by their conduct, acts, and express declarations. A party is bound by a contract if they conduct themselves in a way that a reasonable person would believe they are agreeing to the terms proposed by the other party, regardless of their actual intention. The court emphasized that this rule applies to both oral and written contracts. The case is being retried after a previous appeal. The court refused the appellant's requested instruction to the jury but gave another instruction that required the jury to find both parties' intention to contract with each other for the appellant's employment.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.