Legal Opinion
Levin v. Perkins
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1961PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
The trial judge took the view the contract lacked mutuality of obligation under the doctrine of Pessin v. Fox Head Waukesha Corp. (1939), 230 Wis. 277, 282 N. W. 582, and Hoffmann v. Pfingsten (1951), 260 Wis. 160, 50 N. W. (2d) 369, 26 A. L. R. (2d) 1131, and also was indefinite. The court gave as its reasons that under the contract the defendant had to continue in business ten years, pay a minimum royalty and buy his ice-cream mix from an agent of the plaintiffs, pay a royalty per gallon while the plaintiffs had no patent on the mix or the freezer, made no promise to supply the mix or at a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pessin v. Fox Head Waukesha Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Hoffmann v. PfingstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- Olson v. City of SuperiorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
- Strauss v. Eulberg Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Estate of CurtisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In the Matter of Excalibur Automobile Corporation. Excalibur Automobile Corporation, Debtor-Appellant v. Roosevelt v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Town Bank v. City Real Estate Development, LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- Acme Cigarette Services, Inc. v. GallegosNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- Petricca Construction Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
- Funger v. Mayor of SomersetCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.