ZEMCO MANUFACTURING, INC. V. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPTORATION CORP.
186 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the validity of oral contract extensions.
FACTS: Zemco manufactured and supplied parts to Navistar from 1968-1995. In 1983, the
parties entered into a written contract that was renewable on a yearly basis. From that date
until 1995, Navistar purchased all its requirements from Zemco. In January 1995 the sole
shareholders of Zemco fell into disagreement. Pecoraro sold his interest in the company to
Zemen. Pecoraro then went out and started another company to compete with Zemco. Navistar
then began to buy parts from the new company and to phase out its purchases from Zemco.
Apparently Zemco (P) must have sued Navistar (D) but that is not clear from the facts given
in the casebook. The district court held that the renewal of the contract between P and D
did not comply with the statute of frauds. In 1983, the parties entered into the original
written contract for the sale of parts. The contract was to last one-year but it was
extended by written agreements until 1987. There was no written extension since 1987 but
there were oral agreements. D contends that the oral agreements violate the statute of
frauds and are thus voidable. P contends that these renewals need not be in writing because
they merely modify a nondefinite contract term. The trial court granted summary judgment and
P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment