Legal Opinion
Kauffman Stewart, Inc. v. Weinbrenner Shoe Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 2, 1999No. CX-98-1501PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
Appellant argues that the termination provision of its “Agency/Advertiser Agreement” with respondent is ambiguous, illegal, and unconscionable. We conclude that appellant’s agreement to pay a preset amount to respondent in the event of voluntary termination of their contract is enforceable, and we affirm.
FACTS
In April 1994, appellant Weinbrenner Shoe Company, Inc., signed an “Agency/Advertiser Agreement” with respondent Kauffman Stewart, Inc., an advertising agency. In the agreement, appellant agreed to pay respondent a $15,000 “monthly retainer fee” for its services. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority HouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Blattner v. ForsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Telex Corporation v. Data Products CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Reliastar Life Insurance Company v. Ioa Re, Inc. Swiss Re Life Canada, the Reinsurance Association, Amicus on Behalf OfCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
- S O Designs USA, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Wold v. Dell Financial Services, L.P.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
- Porch v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.