Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Carr | 886 S.W.2d 425 (1994)
The peanut business involves lots of hauling. Gold Kist versus Carr concerns a dispute over whether one operation had or hadn’t been granted exclusive hauling rights to the lucrative Texas market.
Peanut farmers throughout Texas sold their peanuts to Gold Kist. They’d deliver their peanuts to various buying points, some of which were owned by Gold Kist and some of which were independently owned. The peanuts would then be transported from the buying points to the Gold Kist shelling plant in Comyn, Texas.
The shelling plant manager, Walter Holland, contacted Edward Carr and offered to sell him Gold Kist trucks and hauling equipment. Carr wanted the exclusive right to haul peanuts for Gold Kist in Texas.
Some of the independent buying points protested to the Gold Kist corporate office that they wanted to use their own trucks to haul peanuts. Gold Kist didn’t want to lose their business, so it told Holland to draft the final agreement with Carr to exclude any hauling rights.
According to Carr, he and Holland then orally renegotiated the terms of their agreement. Under this second version, they agreed that for the first year, Carr would have exclusive hauling rights from all buying points except the independent buying points that had protested. After that year, the independent points would be, quote, “educated and straightened out,” unquote. Carr would then get exclusive hauling rights from those points as well. To reflect this loss of business for the first year, Carr and Holland reduced the purchase price of the trucks and equipment.
The written contract that Holland eventually received from corporate stated that Gold Kist could but was under no obligation to engage Carr to haul commodities on its behalf. Carr questioned Holland about this statement, which didn’t conform with his expectation of exclusive hauling rights. Holland explained that Gold Kist wouldn’t have to use Carr if his performance didn’t meet Gold Kist’s expectations. Satisfied, Carr signed the contract.
Carr bought the trucks and paid to build a truck terminal at the Gold Kist plant. After several years, Carr was disappointed with the amount of hauling Gold Kist hired him to do. He sued, alleging that Gold Kist had promised him exclusive hauling rights for a five year term. He based this claim on the oral negotiations he and Holland had conducted.
After hearing Carr’s explanation of his conversations with Holland, the jury found for Carr. Gold Kist appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals. It alleged that Carr’s claim was barred by the parol evidence rule.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App [ Ссылка ]
Facebook [ Ссылка ]
Twitter [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
