Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appellee, v. Ted Puls and George Watson, Appellants (Case Study)

Solution Preview

Procedural History,

The initial trial court held that the issue regarding the statute of frauds in this case was not a problem because the parties had both agreed in gist to a contractual agreement including all the terms and conditions associated with this contractual agreement. The only disagreement according to the initial trial court was a disagreement regarding the significance of the down payment that was made by the party purchasing the cattle. In this regard, the court held that the seller was within his legal right to retain the down payment while also applying toward his damages when the buyer breached the contract. In addition, the court held if the down payment was inadequate to cover all of his damages, the seller could bring an action to recover his excess damages.

In this case the initial trial court found that time was not an issue in regard to the contract as the court held that the tendency of modern authority didn't apply because neither party made any overtures or stipulations for when the contract had to be concluded. Therefore, the court found that the seller's actions in regard to holding the cattle beyond the initial contractual date as an attempt to prevent breach of contract on behalf the buyers was reasonable and proper under the circumstances as a last ditch effort to give the buyers a reasonable time to complete the contract. This was established because of a disputed timeframe that was given by the buyers in regard to the proper date to measure the plaintiffs' damages for breach of contract by the defendants.

The initial trial court held ...