Clark v. Wallace County Cooperative Equity Exchange case brief
summary
986 P.2d 391 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Appellant farmer entered into a written agreement with appellee cooperative, in which appellant agreed to sell appellee corn, to be delivered after the crop was harvested. There was a freeze, which severely damaged the corn crop. As a result, appellant's crop fell short of the amount agreed upon, and appellant delivered this lesser amount. Appellant maintained he was excused from delivering the remaining bushels because of the freeze. Appellee held the cost of the shortage out of the grain sale. Appellant brought an action to recover the amount withheld from his grain sale.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; appellant was not excused from performance by impracticability, since he could have acquired the crop shortage from another source because the contract did not identify that the corn had to be grown on certain land.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
986 P.2d 391 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant farmer appealed the judgment
of the Wallace District Court (Kansas), in favor of appellee, on
appellant's action to recover amounts withheld from a sale.CASE FACTS
Appellant farmer entered into a written agreement with appellee cooperative, in which appellant agreed to sell appellee corn, to be delivered after the crop was harvested. There was a freeze, which severely damaged the corn crop. As a result, appellant's crop fell short of the amount agreed upon, and appellant delivered this lesser amount. Appellant maintained he was excused from delivering the remaining bushels because of the freeze. Appellee held the cost of the shortage out of the grain sale. Appellant brought an action to recover the amount withheld from his grain sale.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that appellant was not excused from performance under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-2-613 or § 84-2-615.
- There was no objective impracticability since the corn to be delivered was not identified in the contract to be from specific land.
- Appellant could have delivered the full amount by acquiring the corn from another source.
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed; appellant was not excused from performance by impracticability, since he could have acquired the crop shortage from another source because the contract did not identify that the corn had to be grown on certain land.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment