Anderson v. Backlund
199 N.W. 90, 1924 Minn. LEXIS 653, 159 Minn. 423 (1924)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an oral agreement to be an enforceable contract, its terms must be definite and certain enough to demonstrate a mutual assent or a 'meeting of the minds' on all essential elements. Language that is too general, indefinite, or illusory will not create a legally binding contract.
Facts:
- John Backlund was a tenant on a 640-acre farm owned by Anderson, governed by a pre-existing written lease.
- Backlund expressed financial concerns to Anderson due to poor crops.
- Anderson suggested Backlund purchase more cattle to make use of the farm's pasture and increase his income.
- Backlund voiced his concern that the farm's water supply might be insufficient for an expanded herd, particularly during a dry spell.
- In response, Anderson stated, 'Never mind the water, John, I will see there will be plenty of water because it never failed in Minnesota yet.'
- Relying on Anderson's statement, Backlund purchased an additional 107 head of cattle, bringing his total herd to 174.
- Subsequently, the water supply on the farm failed.
Procedural Posture:
- Anderson filed an action in the trial court to recover on a promissory note from Backlund.
- Backlund alleged a counterclaim for damages, asserting that Anderson breached a subsequent oral contract to provide sufficient water.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Anderson, dismissing Backlund's counterclaim due to insufficient evidence of a contract.
- The trial court denied Backlund's motion for a new trial.
- Backlund (appellant) appealed the order denying his motion for a new trial to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's verbal assurance to a tenant to 'see there will be plenty of water' for additional livestock constitute a legally enforceable oral contract when essential terms like the method and timing of water provision are not specified?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, C. J.
No. A landlord's verbal assurance does not constitute an enforceable contract because the language used is too indefinite and lacks the certainty required for contract formation. The court reasoned that the conversation lacked essential terms, such as how or when the additional water would be provided, making it impossible to determine what, precisely, was promised. The court characterized Anderson's statement as 'visiting or advice' rather than a binding contractual promise. Because the language was so general and illusory, there was no mutual assent to a specific proposition, meaning the 'minds of the parties never met' on the essential terms of an agreement.
Analysis:
This case is a classic illustration of the contract formation requirement of definiteness. It reinforces the principle that not every promise or assurance rises to the level of a legally binding contract. The court's decision emphasizes that for a contract to be valid and enforceable, the parties' obligations must be clearly defined so a court can determine if a breach has occurred and fashion a remedy. This holding cautions parties against relying on vague, conversational assurances in business dealings and underscores the importance of specifying essential terms in any agreement.
