Morris Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store case brief summary
86 N.W.2d 689
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant appealed from a judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and an order of the Municipal Court of Minneapolis (Minnesota) denying defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for damages for defendant's failure to sell to plaintiff an item advertised in the newspaper.
HOLDING:
The court determined that the offer by defendant of the sale of the item was clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff, having successfully managed to comply with the terms of the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, was entitled to performance on the part of defendant. The court here agreed with the trial court's holding that the conduct of the parties created sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and the denial of defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or in the alternative, for a new trial.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
86 N.W.2d 689
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant appealed from a judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and an order of the Municipal Court of Minneapolis (Minnesota) denying defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for damages for defendant's failure to sell to plaintiff an item advertised in the newspaper.
HOLDING:
The court determined that the offer by defendant of the sale of the item was clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff, having successfully managed to comply with the terms of the advertisement, and having offered the stated purchase price of the article, was entitled to performance on the part of defendant. The court here agreed with the trial court's holding that the conduct of the parties created sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of sale.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment awarded to plaintiff for breach of contract and the denial of defendant's motion for amended findings of fact or in the alternative, for a new trial.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment