Legal Opinion
Ford Motorcar Co. v. Rackley
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 15, 1917No. 7449PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Error from County Court, McClain County ; A. J. Mauldin, Judge. Action- by B. H. Rackley against the Eord Motorcar Company. Judgment'for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
HOOKER, C.
The parties hereto in February, 1914, entered into a written contract by the terms of which the Eord Motorcar Company agreed to give to the plaintiff, Rackley, a limited agency for the purpose of selling automobiles, etc., in the city of Purcell and the vicinity thereto until September 30, 1914.
The parts of the contract involved in this lawsuit are sections 35 and 48, which are as follows:
“Section 35: The second party shall have the right and privilege of returning to first party at the place of purchase at any time during the term of this contract, or within thirty days…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Crawford v. . Mail Express Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Cloe v. RogersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Cummer v. ButtsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Lyon v. PollardSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Morrissey v. BroomalNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ritter v. Perma-Stone CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
- Sloan v. Mud Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1953
- Whiteis v. Yamaha International Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Harold G. Whiteis, a Sole Proprietor, D/B/A Motor Sports of Tulsa v. Yamaha International Corporation, a Corporation, Harold G. Whiteis, a Sole Proprietor, D/B/A Motor Sports of Tulsa, Cross-Appellant v. Yamaha International Corporation, a Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976