Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co.
160 S.W. 777, 1913 Ky. LEXIS 380, 156 Ky. 6 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract lacks mutuality of obligation and is unenforceable if one party's performance is conditioned on a discretionary basis, such as being excused for any 'unforseen reason' that effectively allows that party to cancel its obligation at will.
Facts:
- On November 17, 1908, F. G. Walker Company, a distillery, entered into a contract with Rehm-Zeiher Company, a whiskey seller.
- The contract stipulated that Walker Co. would sell Rehm-Zeiher Co. specified quantities of whiskey each year for four years (1909-1912).
- The agreement contained a clause stating: 'If for any unforseen, reason the party of the second part [Rehm-Zeiher] find that they cannot use the full amount of the above named goods, the party of the first part [Walker Co.] agrees to release them...'
- Rehm-Zeiher's president understood this clause to mean his company was only obligated to purchase as much whiskey as it could sell, and that not selling the whiskey constituted an 'unforseen reason'.
- In 1909 and 1910, Rehm-Zeiher ordered and received significantly less than the quantities specified in the contract.
- In early 1911, the market price for whiskey increased.
- After delivering 1,044 cases in 1911, Walker Co. refused to furnish the remaining 2,596 cases that Rehm-Zeiher had ordered for that year.
Procedural Posture:
- Rehm-Zeiher Company sued F. G. Walker Company in a trial court for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's (Rehm-Zeiher's) evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant (F. G. Walker Co.), holding the contract was unenforceable.
- Rehm-Zeiher Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to this 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 contract for the sale of goods lack the mutuality of obligation required to be enforceable where it allows the buyer to be released from its purchase obligation for any 'unforseen reason'?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Carroll
Yes, such a contract is unenforceable because it lacks mutuality of obligation. The court reasoned that the 'unforseen reason' clause rendered Rehm-Zeiher's promise to purchase illusory, as it gave the company complete discretion to decide whether to perform. The clause was not limited to specific, objective conditions but could be invoked for any reason, including simply not being able to sell the goods. Because Walker Co. could not have compelled Rehm-Zeiher to purchase any whiskey, Rehm-Zeiher could not, in turn, compel Walker Co. to sell. The court distinguished this from valid 'requirements contracts,' where a buyer's obligation is tied to the good-faith needs of an established business, which provides a reasonably certain quantity. The partial performance in prior years did not cure this fundamental lack of mutuality.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of the traditional contract law principle requiring mutuality of obligation, where both parties must be bound for a contract to be enforceable. It clearly distinguishes an unenforceable, illusory promise—where performance is left to one party's unfettered discretion—from a valid requirements contract tied to objective, good-faith business needs. The decision emphasizes that a party cannot enforce a promise if they have not made a binding promise in return. It serves as a foundational lesson in contract drafting, illustrating how seemingly minor clauses can render an entire agreement void for lack of consideration and mutuality.
Unlock the full brief for Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co.