Appellate Court Case Opinion Breach of Contract
The appellate course opinion (state) that will be analyzed in this text is that of John E. Brock (Plaintiff) v. Johnson Breeders, Inc. (Defendant). This was selected owing to the lessons it presents in relation to repudiation of a contract. The case selected is in line with the course’s objective of further enhancing understanding of not only the creation, but also the management as well as termination of contracts.
Discussion
The plaintiff was contracted by the defendant to grow chickens for the defendant (a chicken breeder) for a period of 24 years. As per the specifics of the contract, the defendant was to supply baby chicks to the defendant – whereupon the defendant would avail and apply the necessary labor, conditions, and equipment to raise the chicks to maturity (Justia, 2015, p. 3). The defendant would then pick the chicks once they attained 5 – 6 weeks (maturity) and pay the defendant using the weight of the mature chicken as the basis of payment (Justia, 2015, p. 3). The plaintiff then undertook to ready his farm for the delivery of the next flock by the defendant. This is an arrangement that worked well for a significant period of time.
As per the contract in force between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was a specific provision that the defendant “makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee as to the number of birds to be placed with [plaintiff] under this contract…” (Justia, 2015, p. 6) It is also important to note that the contract was categorical that the defendant “agrees to deliver the flocks (number and breed of which are to be determined by Johnson in its sole discretion” to the plaintiff (Justia, 2015, p. 7). Further there was a termination clause permitting the defendant to initiate the contract’s termination for any reason (or for no reason). However, in the event of the said termination, the defendant was required to furnish the plaintiff with a written notice highlighting the reasons for termination 90 days before the said termination took effect.
In seeking to enhance its compliance to various industry standards, the defendant in 2011 called upon all its growers to make certain changes to their chicken houses. Towards this end, the defendant sent out two written notices to all the growers it had contracted with and sought responses with regard to the planned updates. On the September of 2011, the plaintiff did not receive his chicks shipment. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff was informed that due to his failure to conduct the required updated on his premises, the delivery of the chicks had been halted (Justia, 2015, p. 4). It is...
The plaintiff promptly filed for a breach of contract suit against the defendant.
Upon jury deliberations, it was found that the defendant was indeed in breach. In effect, therefore, the verdict returned by the jury was essentially in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was, thus, awarded damages totaling to $42,235.96. The defendant was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed. The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court. In this case, it was found that “the trial court did not err in denying Johnson’s motions for directed verdict and JNOV or in entering judgment upon the jury’s verdict” (Justia, 2015, p. 18). It would be prudent to highlight the arguments presented by the defendant and how they were addressed, in law.
To begin with, the defendant argued that he was not in breach because as per the terms of the contract, it had...…the plaintiff proves them with ‘reasonable certainty’” (299).
The John E. Brock v. Johnson Breeders, Inc. case comes in handy in the further enhancement of one’s understanding of repudiation of a contract. It is clear from this particular case that the move by one of the parties to a contract to release itself from its contractual obligations in the belief that the other party/parties to the contract breached in the first place could be a rather slippery path. This is more so the case given that as Blum (2007) observes, it could be swiftly countered with a superior argument - as was the case in the case of John E. Brock v. Johnson Breeders, Inc. In the present case, the plaintiff argued that it never received a key notice advising of needed upgrades to their installation. The argument was found to have merit.
In the final analysis, it is important to note that I am in agreement with the court’s opinion. This is more so the case given that the said ruling does affirm several contract law basic principles. This is more so the case with regard to the finding that the application of the contract should be as a whole. This means that some provisions cannot be taken into consideration and others discarded. In the case of John E. Brock v. Johnson Breeders, Inc., the defendant argued that the contract gave it full discretion with regard to the selection of the number of chicks to be delivered – meaning that it could choose not to deliver any chicks at all. However, the court made a finding to the effect that the same contract had clear provisions governing its termination. Thus, every clause in a contract is given meaning.
References…
