Bus Law
Case Presentation
Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders Protein Blenders, Inc. made written contract with Gingerich to buy from him shares of stock of a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey Farms. The plaintiff, Protein Blenders, Inc. agreed to purchase 4,505 shares of preferred stock from the defendant, Gingerich, a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey farms. The price of each stock was $52.50 per share which came to a grand total of $236,512.50. Protein Blenders, Inc. has failed and refused to accept the stock or to pay the agreed amount. Protein Blenders, Inc. decided not to purchase the stock from Gingerich because the stock is of unknown and unknown easily ascertainable value. The defendants moved to transfer law, and their motion was overruled.
At first the court ruled that Protein Blenders, Inc. did not have to follow with the written contract and didn’t have to pay for the stock. But an order of appeal was granted before final judgment. The appellants, applied to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court, were Newton L. Margulies, Max Putnam and Putnam, Putnam & Putnam, and Des Moines. The appellee, respondent in a case appealed to a higher court, consisted of Louis J. Kehoe, Alfred E. Baldridge, Washington, and Simmons, Perrine, Albright, Ellwood & Neff, and Cedar Rapids. During this appeal process the case was overturned or reversed because there was an adequate remedy of law already in existence.
My stand in the case Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders, Inc. has to be with Gingerich based on the evidence presented. Gingerich formed a written contract with Protein Blenders, Inc. that Protein Blenders, Inc. would purchase a certain number of stocks at a given price per stock. After the contract was signed Protein Blenders, Inc. didn’t want to pay for the stocks they purchased due to the fact that unknown and not easily ascertainable value was available. This is where Protein Blenders, Inc. is at fault
Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders Protein Blenders, Inc. made written contract with Gingerich to buy from him shares of stock of a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey Farms. The plaintiff, Protein Blenders, Inc. agreed to purchase 4,505 shares of preferred stock from the defendant, Gingerich, a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey farms. The price of each stock was $52.50 per share which came to a grand total of $236,512.50. Protein Blenders, Inc. has failed and refused to accept the stock or to pay the agreed amount. Protein Blenders, Inc. decided not to purchase the stock from Gingerich because the stock is of unknown and unknown easily ascertainable value. The defendants moved to transfer law, and their motion was overruled.
At first the court ruled that Protein Blenders, Inc. did not have to follow with the written contract and didn’t have to pay for the stock. But an order of appeal was granted before final judgment. The appellants, applied to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court, were Newton L. Margulies, Max Putnam and Putnam, Putnam & Putnam, and Des Moines. The appellee, respondent in a case appealed to a higher court, consisted of Louis J. Kehoe, Alfred E. Baldridge, Washington, and Simmons, Perrine, Albright, Ellwood & Neff, and Cedar Rapids. During this appeal process the case was overturned or reversed because there was an adequate remedy of law already in existence.
My stand in the case Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders, Inc. has to be with Gingerich based on the evidence presented. Gingerich formed a written contract with Protein Blenders, Inc. that Protein Blenders, Inc. would purchase a certain number of stocks at a given price per stock. After the contract was signed Protein Blenders, Inc. didn’t want to pay for the stocks they purchased due to the fact that unknown and not easily ascertainable value was available. This is where Protein Blenders, Inc. is at fault