Legal Opinion
Glantz v. Freedman
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 17, 1929No. Docket No. 3742PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
The plaintiff as principal and the defendant as agent entered into a contract for the sale of the former’s grapes by the latter. The contract contains the following:
“It is therefore agreed that the said principal hereby appoints the said agent as his sole and exclusive agent for selling said grapes f. o. b. cars shipping point for the account of principal, unless written instructions are delivered to the said agent to consign same, and agrees to pay said agent the sum of 20 cents per lug or packed crate as his entire compensation for furnishing lugs, receiving, loading and for sale of said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Betts v. Southern California Fruit ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bechtel v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Miller v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Armstrong v. Kubo & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Pugh v. Porter Bros. Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Casey v. Phillips Pipeline Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1967
- United States v. Certain Parcels of LandDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
- H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1979
- McElligott v. FreelandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.