Butler v. Attwood

15 Citing cases

  1. M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GMBH & Co.

    143 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that courts will rarely deny enforcement of a contract because of indefiniteness or missing details

    Further, enforcement of a contract will rarely be denied because of indefiniteness or missing details. See Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1966) ("Courts do not favor the destruction of contracts because of indefiniteness and hold that uncertainty may be removed by subsequent acts, conduct, declarations, or agreements of the parties.") Behr also contends that this is a good faith dispute subject to further arbitration because the issue did not arise until after the three-year time period had expired and MC had claimed commissions for parts that were "released" after that three year period.

  2. Precision Rubber Products v. George McCarthy

    872 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing the enforceability of requirements contracts under "elementary contract law principles of offer and acceptance, which state that a contract may be formed even before the specific details of the time, place, and quantity of delivery are fixed"

    This conclusion ignores elementary contract law principles of offer and acceptance, which state that a contract may be formed even before the specific details of the time, place, and quantity of delivery are fixed. See e.g. Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1966) (enforcement of contract will rarely be denied because of indefiniteness or missing details). "A promise to buy of another person or company all or some of the commodity or service that the promissor may thereafter need or require in his business is not an illusory promise and such a promise is a sufficient consideration for a return promise."

  3. Carrick v. Hagan (In re Carrick Trucking, Inc.)

    Case No. 15-cv-13115 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2016)

    The trusts' "forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice." Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811, 819 (6th Cir.1966) (quoting Kent v. Klein, 352 Mich. 652, 658, 91 N.W.2d 11, 14 (1958)). The party wanting the constructive trust to be imposed has the burden of proof.

  4. Morris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

    751 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2010)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morris v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 751 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (Lawson, J.), the husband listed his first-wife as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

    The trusts' "forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice." Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811, 819 (6th Cir. 1966) (quoting Kent v. Klein, 352 Mich. 652, 658, 91 N.W.2d 11, 14 (1958)). The party wanting the constructive trust to be imposed has the burden of proof.

  5. U.S. v. Currency $11,331

    482 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. Mich. 2007)   Cited 15 times

    The trusts' "forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice." Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811, 819 (6th Cir. 1966) (quoting Kent v. Klein, 352 Mich. 652, 658, 91 N.W.2d 11, 14 (1958)). The party wanting the constructive trust to be imposed has the burden of proof.

  6. Anton v. SBC Global Services, Inc.

    Civil Action Nos. 01-40098, 01-40213 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 29, 2006)

    As noted in the March 2004 Report and Recommendation where there is agreement on the core terms of a contract, uncertainty on certain details may not be fatale. See Butler v. Atwood, 369 F.2d 811, 816 (6th Cir. 1966) ("Courts do not favor the destruction of contracts because of indefiniteness and hold that uncertainty may be removed by subsequent acts, conduct, declarations, or agreements of the parties."); M C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH Co., 143 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating that courts will rarely deny enforcement of a contract because of indefiniteness or missing details).

  7. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Mulligan

    00-10442-BC (E.D. Mich. Jun. 28, 2002)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that a hearing would be necessary to determine whether equity ought to prescribe a result different than required by ERISA based on competing factual claims as to decedent's intended beneficiaries on his life insurance policy

    The trusts' "forms and varieties are practically without limit, being raised by courts of equity whenever it becomes necessary to prevent a failure of justice." Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811, 819 (6th Cir. 1966) (quoting Kent v. Klein, 352 Mich. 652, 658, 91 N.W.2d 11, 14 (1958)). The party wanting the constructive trust to be imposed has the burden of proof.

  8. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Weinberger

    367 F. Supp. 1378 (D.D.C. 1973)   Cited 14 times
    In Pennsylvania v. Weinberger, 367 F.Supp. 1378 (D.D.C. 1973), the court interpreted the Tydings Amendment to the General Education Provision Act. That amendment stated that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted in specific limitation of the provisions of this subsection," unobligated funds from certain appropriations through fiscal year 1973 would remain available through the next fiscal year. 367 F.Supp. at 1383 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (1970)).

    Note 38, supra. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. F.P.C., 126 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 379 F.2d 153 (1967); Butler v. Atwood, 369 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1966); United States v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 457 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972). Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment will be granted, Defendants' cross-motion will be denied.

  9. Duffus v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs.

    Supreme Court No. S-15054 (Alaska Feb. 19, 2014)

    " (citing WTG Gas Processing, L.P. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 309 S.W.3d 635, 645 (Tex. App. 2010))); Eckles v. Sharman, 548 F.2d 905, 909 (10th Cir. 1977) ("If a contract has been agreed upon and all that remains is good faith negotiations or elaboration of non-essential terms, the contract will be held legally cognizable despite the uncertainties." (citing White Point Co. v. Herrington, 73 Cal. Rptr. 885, 889 (Cal. App. 1968))); Butler v. Attwood, 369 F.2d 811, 816 (6th Cir. 1966) ("Even though certain matters are expressly left to be agreed upon in the future, they may not be regarded by the parties as essential to their present agreement." (quoting 1 ARTHUR LINTON CORBIN, CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 29, at 89, 90 (1st ed. 1963)) (quotation marks omitted)).

  10. Kramer v. Puracyp, Inc.

    D070407 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2017)

    Steinmeyer stated the trial court reasonably concluded the stock of a corporation had "a peculiar value" because it was wholly owned by the defendant and "not readily obtainable on the open market." (Steinmeyer, at p. 520, italics added; see also Butler v. Attwood (6th Cir. 1966) 369 F.2d 811, 815 [specific performance was properly granted to enforce buy-sell agreement regarding corporation's stock because the stock was unique, being closely held and not available on the market]; Brand v. Lowther (W.Va. 1981) 285 S.E.2d 474, 479 ["[E]quity will compel specific performance of a contract for the transfer of shares of stock when they have a peculiar value to the party demanding the transfer[;] . . . [s]pecific performance of a contract for the sale of shares of stock will also be decreed in a proper case where the stock is not readily purchaseable in the market or where the pecuniary value is uncertain or not easily ascertainable, as in the case of a closely held corporation."].) Also, if the shares of stock of a corporation do not have an "established market value," specific performance may be granted.