Kraftco Corp. v. Koblus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a purported exclusive distribution contract lacking terms for “duration, prices, area, products, quotas, etc.” was too indefinite to be enforceable
• holding that an alleged oral agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor lacked mutuality of obligation, and was enforceable where the distributor “had no obligation to sell any specific quantity and no obligation to meet any quotas”
• acknowledging that terms of a contract may be implied under certain circumstances, but limiting the application of that doctrine when, because of an agreement’s uncertainty, the court would be required to “writ[e] the total contract for the parties”
• acknowledging that terms of a con- tract may be implied under certain circumstances, but limiting the application of that doctrine when, because of an agreement’s uncertainty, the court would be required to “writ[e] the total contract for the parties”
• “The mere allegation of best efforts is too indefinite and uncertain to be an enforceable standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).