The Plaintiff Wendling
Case Study 2
Procedural History
The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed. Both of the Defendants argued that the oral contract was unenforceable by law and the damages were also not calculated correctly.
Facts
Plaintiff Wendling, who was a farmer and stockman, met Defendant Puls, who was a cattle buyer in July 1973. The two got to talking and Wendling informed Puls that there was a possibility that he would have cattle for sale around mid August. On August 13th, Puls received a call from Wendling letting him know that he had cattle ready to be sold. The two later met, along with Puls’s financial assistance Watson and agreed on a sales price based on the weight of the cattle on August 16th. Puls left a deposit of 1,000 dollars with Wendling for the cattle. On the scheduled date for pick up, Puls requested an additional week for delivery of the cattle. Needless to say, after the week went by there was no sign of Puls. He failed to respond to any of phone calls or messages left by Wendling. When he was finally able to reach Puls on August 27th, he learned that Puls didn’t have a place to store the cattle. Since there were so many issues, Wendling asked Puls for an additional down payment, which was refused by Puls. Puls went on to suggest that maybe he should just sell his cattle to someone else. At that time, Wendling suggested to Puls that he provide him with a written release, which he just ignored. Wendling went on to seek legal advice and was advised to get a written release from Puls before engaging in another sale of the cattle. Wendling tried to reach Puls, but was unsuccessful; however he was able to reach Watson. He asked Watson if they both would meet him at his lawyers’ office, so that he could obtain a release from the contract in order
Procedural History
The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed. Both of the Defendants argued that the oral contract was unenforceable by law and the damages were also not calculated correctly.
Facts
Plaintiff Wendling, who was a farmer and stockman, met Defendant Puls, who was a cattle buyer in July 1973. The two got to talking and Wendling informed Puls that there was a possibility that he would have cattle for sale around mid August. On August 13th, Puls received a call from Wendling letting him know that he had cattle ready to be sold. The two later met, along with Puls’s financial assistance Watson and agreed on a sales price based on the weight of the cattle on August 16th. Puls left a deposit of 1,000 dollars with Wendling for the cattle. On the scheduled date for pick up, Puls requested an additional week for delivery of the cattle. Needless to say, after the week went by there was no sign of Puls. He failed to respond to any of phone calls or messages left by Wendling. When he was finally able to reach Puls on August 27th, he learned that Puls didn’t have a place to store the cattle. Since there were so many issues, Wendling asked Puls for an additional down payment, which was refused by Puls. Puls went on to suggest that maybe he should just sell his cattle to someone else. At that time, Wendling suggested to Puls that he provide him with a written release, which he just ignored. Wendling went on to seek legal advice and was advised to get a written release from Puls before engaging in another sale of the cattle. Wendling tried to reach Puls, but was unsuccessful; however he was able to reach Watson. He asked Watson if they both would meet him at his lawyers’ office, so that he could obtain a release from the contract in order