Protein Blenders, Inc. made written contract with Gingerich to buy from him shares of stock of a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey Farms. The plaintiff, Protein Blenders, Inc. agreed to purchase 4,505 shares of preferred stock from the defendant, Gingerich, a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey farms. The price of each stock was $52. 50 per share which came to a grand total of $236,512. 50. Protein Blenders, Inc. has failed and refused to accept the stock or to pay the agreed amount.
Protein Blenders, Inc. ecided not to purchase the stock from Gingerich because the stock is of unknown and unknown easily ascertainable value. The defendants moved to transfer law, and their motion was overruled. At first the court ruled that Protein Blenders, Inc. did not have to follow with the written contract and didn’t have to pay for the stock. But an order of appeal was granted before final judgment. The appellants, applied to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court, were Newton L.
Margulies, Max Putnam and Putnam, Putnam & Putnam, and Des Moines.
The appellee, respondent in a case appealed to a higher court, consisted of Louis J. Kehoe, Alfred E. Baldridge, Washington, and Simmons, Perrine, Albright, Ellwood & Neff, and Cedar Rapids. During this appeal process the case was overturned or reversed because there was an adequate remedy of law already in existence. My stand in the case Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders, Inc. has to be with Gingerich based on the evidence presented. Gingerich formed a written contract with Protein Blenders, Inc. that Protein Blenders, Inc. would purchase a certain number of stocks at a given price per stock.
After the contract was signed Protein Blenders, Inc. didn’t want to pay for the stocks they purchased due to the fact that unknown and not easily ascertainable value was available. This is where Protein Blenders, Inc. is at fault and should have thoroughly gone over the contract they were presented with by Gingerich. They were quick to make this deal happen and never checked up on the actuality of the prices of their new purchase. In the court system they believe people are reasonable intelligent, and the courts will not come to their aid just because they have made an unwise or foolish bargain.
The court needed to enforce what was writing in this contract by using the meaning of the terms from the face of the instrument (plain meaning rule). In conclusion, when a written contract is formed and signed by both parties it is hard to get that contract voided if one party doesn’t agree on the terms after the fact. In the first court meeting between Gingerich and Protein Blenders, Inc. , Gingerich didn’t get there way the first time around but with the courts allowing for an appeal it granted Gingerich the right to get the ruling overturned. This then forced Protein Blenders, Inc. to pay what was initially stated in the contract.
Cite this Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders
Gingerich vs. Protein Blenders. (2016, Oct 25). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/gingerich-vs-protein-blenders/