Cargill Coal Co. v. Valentine
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.
The defendant contends that the written phrase in the contract “to be financed,” clearly indicates an intention that the plaintiff would accept the purchase price in the form of deferred payments, and that since the times for payment are not fixed, the contract is indefinite as to payment, and hence is invalid under the rule of Buck v. Pond (1905), 126 Wis. 382, 105 N. W. 909; Poole v. Tannis (1908), 137 Wis. 363, 118 N. W. 188, 118 N. W. 864; and Bast v. Sproll (1922), 176 Wis. 371, 187 N. W. 223. It is the position of the plaintiff that the contract calls for cash payment from the defendant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Buck v. PondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Poole v. TannisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Conrad v. EvansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Jones v. Holland Furnace Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Ludtke v. Compound School District No. 5Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Patti v. Western MacHine Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Craigs, Inc. v. General Electric Capital Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- Peninsular Carpets, Inc. v. Bradley Homes, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Lemke v. Larsen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Boek v. WagnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.