L. N. Brunswig & Co. v. Wm. S. Merrell Chemical Co.
Citations
- 110 La. 214
- 34 So. 417
- 1903 La. LEXIS 613
Syllabus
<p>CONTRACT — CONSTRUCTION—MODIFICATION.</p> <p>1. In order to avail themselves of the facilities for introducing their goods into the territory covered by plaintiffs’ business, the defendant company sold them at reduced rates large quantities of these goods, with the right of exchanging the same for others from time to-time, undertaking also to send out their own drummers to assist in the disposal of the same,. There was no limitation as to the extent of the right of exchange. The contract provided by its eighth article that on the termination of the contract the right of exchange should continue-for six months, After the contract had terminated by mutual consent, the parties modified the eighth article by removing this time limit of six months. The plaintiffs contend that this was the extent of the modification, while defendants maintain the modification was that the-right of exchange should continue until the-stock in hand should be reduced to a reasonable stock, of which they were to be the judges. The testimony was directly conflicting. Held, that plaintiffs’ contention was inherently more-probable than that of defendants.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the “legal/factual position distinction” in judicial estoppel is “adopted by some courts” but is not “settled law”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.