Parks v. Elmore
Citations
- 59 Wash. 584
- 110 P. 381
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1244
Syllabus
<p>Frauds, Statute of — Sales—Personal Property — Statement oh Consideration. Under the statute of frauds of the state of Oregon,, requiring a contract for the sale of personal property of the value-of over $50 to express the consideration, it is sufficient if the contract, without stating the consideration in express terms, shows-mutual promises and it is evident that the promise on one part was the consideration for the promise on the part of the other.</p> <p>Contracts — Mutuality. A contract whereby plaintiff agreed to-pay a certain price for fish during the season, if he purchased any from the defendant, is not lacking in mutuality because optional on the part of the plaintiff, where it contained other stipulations obligating the plaintiff to limit his catch under certain conditions and to-deliver all his surplus fish to the defendant at a certain price.</p> <p>Evidence — Contracts—Ambiguity—Parol Evidence to Explain. In an action upon a contract for the sale by a fish dealer of “my entire catch” of dog salmon, parol evidence is admissible to show that the words “my entire catch” referred to dog salmon which the dealer was compelled to purchase of fishermen in buying silverside salmon and that he did not personally engage in fishing, both parties being, familiar with the facts and having operated under a similar contract the year before; since “catch” has not such a definite and fixed, meaning as not to admit of explanation under any circumstances.</p> <p>Sales — Contracts—Rescission. A contract to sell fish during a. season is not rescinded by a letter written by the seller to the purchaser before the season began offering to rescind the contract, where the seller made no reply to the letter.</p> <p>Sales — Breach by Purchaser- — Damages—Mitigation. It cannot be urged that a recovery for breach of contract to purchase fish, which the seller had to destroy, was excessive, because the plaintiff might by diligence have disposed of the same for some price at a cer
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, “after the case was rendered, the chancery court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate” any issues
- “[A]fter a final decree had been entered in [the Supreme] [C]ourt, . . . the cause was at an end.” (quoting George v. Caldwell, 98 Miss. 820, 54 So. 316 (1911))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fullerton
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.