Legal Opinion

Halvorson v. Tarnow

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 8, 1950PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

The appeal is based upon three grounds: (1) Plaintiff cannot recover on the theory of an express contract (a) because plaintiff’s testimony shows there was no express contract, (b) if a contract can be implied from the facts it was a contract to pay commissions on orders shipped to customers and by plaintiff’s own statement all such commissions were paid, (c) the contract between the parties as found by the trial court is void because of lack of mutuality, (d) if there was any contract it was made with the predecessor corporation; there is no evidence that there ever was a contract made…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Meinshausen v. A. Gettelman Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  2. George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co. v. Howard Brass & Copper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Pessin v. Fox Head Waukesha Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Hopkins v. Racine Malleable & Wrought Iron Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Strauss v. Eulberg Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Zweck v. D P Way Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Charles D. Bender v. Hearst CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
  3. Larson v. Superior Auto Parts, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Johnson v. Bar-Mour, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Hyman-Michaels Co. v. Ashmus Equipment Sales Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API