Embry v. McKittrick

From wikilawschool.org. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Embry v. McKittrick
Court Missouri Court of Appeals
Citation 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777
Date decided November 5, 1907

Facts

  • Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co. = "McKittrick" = defendant = employer
  • Mr. Embry = "Embry" = plaintiff = employee
  • Embry was an employee of McKittrick under a written contract that expired December 15, 1903.

Embry's job was to select samples for the sales staff of McKittrick.

Embry says that on December 23, 1903, a new contract was created, hiring him for one more year. McKittrick says that no such contract was created.

Embry had a 1-year employment contract with McKittrick for $2,000/year.

Plaintiff was let go by McKittrick in March 1904. The supposed renewal of a contract was only verbal between McKittrick and Embry.

Procedural History

St. Louis Circuit Court found for McKittrick.

Embry appealed.

Issues

Are words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract sufficient to create a valid contract?

Arguments

Plaintiff (Embry) says that his boss (McKittrick) agreed to a year-long contract.

McKittrick argues that there was no such contract.

Holding

Yes. Words that lead a reasonable person to infer intent to enter into a binding contract are sufficient to create a valid contract.

Judgment

Reversed.

Reasons

Generally, there must be a "meeting of the minds" for a contract to be validly formed by both sides, but not always. As long as the words used were sufficient to constitute a contract, there is a contract.

Rule

Resources

Holding: There was a contract.