58 P.2d 549
SYNOPSIS:Defendant appealed from the judgement of the District Court, Tulsa County (Oklahoma), which returned a judgment in favor of plaintiff in a breach of contract action.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff instituted action against defendant to recover damages for breach of a contract. A verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and defendant appealed. Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to furnish sand which plaintiff had sold for shipment and that defendant renounced the contract. Defendant alleged that plaintiff breached the terms of the contract by failing and refusing to pay for sand shipped each month as required by the contract and advised plaintiff he would cease making further shipments unless he paid as provided in the agreement. Defendant contended that the contract was a mere revocable offer and was not binding for want of mutuality.
On appeal, the court affirmed, finding the contract was mutually binding upon the parties.
The court also held that the finding by the jury in favor of plaintiff regarding defendant's claim that plaintiff did not correctly pay for the sand was supported by competent evidence.
Where the terms of a contract are susceptible of two significations, that will be adopted which gives some operation to the contract, rather than that which renders it inoperative.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed, finding the contract was mutually binding upon the parties, and holding that the finding by the jury in favor of plaintiff regarding defendant's claim that plaintiff did not correctly pay for the sand was supported by competent evidence.
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?