Legal Opinion

A. A. Murphy, Inc. v. Banfield

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 25, 1961No. 39023PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERRY, Justice.

The agents of Frank Banfield, dba Ban-field Sales, approached Mr. and Mrs. Bo-gard in an effort to solicit their participation in an “economy food plan”. The selling point, as outlined by the agents, was that Banfield could substantially reduce Bogards’ living expenses by undertaking to supply, at wholesale prices, their usual household needs for meats and vegetables over a period of two years. For the storage of these provisions which were to be frozen and delivered in sizeable lots, Ban-field offered to sell Bogards a freezer unit on a time basis. Banfield represented that…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Mathews v. SniggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919
  2. Davis v. GwaltneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
  3. Stapleton v. HoltSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  4. Liberty Plan Co. v. Francis T. Smith Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  5. First State Bank of Keota v. BridgesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Schepp v. HessSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  2. Schovanec v. Archdiocese of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
  3. N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Penn Square Bank, N.A. v. Myron J. PalermoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
  5. LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985

34 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