Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Brief Fact Summary.
International Casings Group, Inc. sued Premium Standard Farms, Inc. to enforce a contract that was never reduced to writing or signed by either party.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A meeting of the minds regarding the terms of an agreement and the parties actions is enough to form a contract without a writing signed by the parties.
The factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue are: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.
View Full Point of Law
International Casings Group, Inc. (ICG) sued Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (PSF) to enforce a contract that was never reduced to a writing signed by either party but the parties previously performed pursuant to the agreement.The agreement was for PSF to sell hog casings to ICG’s various facilities. When PSF informed ICG that they seek to terminate the contract, ICG filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Issue.
Whether a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of an agreement and the parties actions is enough to form a contract without a writing signed by the parties?
Held.
Yes. ICG’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. A meeting of the minds existed because both ICG and PSF reached an agreement and performed in accordance with the agreement terms. Mutual assent to form a contract are not barred from performance simply because a writing does not exist.
Discussion.
PSF argues that no contract exists because there wasn’t a meeting of the minds with regards to price. However, performance of the contract began after the companies reached an agreement regarding the terms of the contract. When both parties were performing the contract, PSF did not express any displeasure with regards to the contract price.