Gay Jenson Farms v. Cargill case brief

Gay Jenson Farms v. Cargill

a.       Ps brought action against Cargill and Warren Grain to recover losses sustained when Warren defaulted on Ks made with Ps for sale of grain

b.      P allege that Cargill was jointly liable for Warren’s indebtedness as it had acted as principal for the grain elevator

c.       agreement may result in the creation of an agency relationship although the parties did not call it an agency and did not intend the legal consequences of the relation to follow

d.      existence of agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence which shows a course of dealing between the two parties

e.       Factors:

1)      Cargill’s constant recommendations to W by phone

2)      Cargill’s right of first refusal on grain;

3)      Inability for W to enter into mortgages, purchase tock, without C approval

4)      C right of entry on W premises

5)      C correspondence and criticism regarding W finances

6)      C’s determination that W needed strong paternal guidance

7)      C name imprinted on drafts and forms to W

8)      Financing of all W’s purchases of grain and operating expenses

9)      C power to discontinue financing of W’s operations

f.       Under restatement, must be shown that supplier has an independent business before it can be concluded that he is not an agent; record establishes that all portions of Ws operation were financed by Cargill and that W sold almost all of its market grain to C