Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co. case brief summary
522 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975)
CASE FACTS
Appellant brought an action alleging breach of contract against appellee. It sought relief in the form of a mandatory injunction prohibiting the continuing breach or, in the alternative, damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court held a bench trial on the issues of whether there was a valid, binding contract between the parties and whether, if there was such a contract, appellant should be enjoined from breaching it. It then ruled that the contract is invalid due to lack of mutuality and denied the prayer for injunctive relief. The court made no decision regarding the requested damages.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the lower court and remanded the case stating that the trial court should grant the injunctive relief prayed for. The case fell within that category in which specific performance should be ordered as a matter of right.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
522 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by appellant from judgment
in favor of appellee in a contract case involving specific
performance.CASE FACTS
Appellant brought an action alleging breach of contract against appellee. It sought relief in the form of a mandatory injunction prohibiting the continuing breach or, in the alternative, damages.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court held a bench trial on the issues of whether there was a valid, binding contract between the parties and whether, if there was such a contract, appellant should be enjoined from breaching it. It then ruled that the contract is invalid due to lack of mutuality and denied the prayer for injunctive relief. The court made no decision regarding the requested damages.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court concluded that there is mutuality of consideration within the terms of the agreement.
- The court of appeals stated that there was a valid, binding contract between the parties as to each of the developments for which supplemental letter agreements have been signed.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the lower court and remanded the case stating that the trial court should grant the injunctive relief prayed for. The case fell within that category in which specific performance should be ordered as a matter of right.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment