Case Summaries

(oral cash farm lease did not die with tenant and surviving spouse, as sole beneficiary of tenant's estate, entitled to lease termination notice in accordance with state law (six months notice before March 1); court reasoned that cash lease does not require personal services (so lease did not end on tenant's death) but stated that crop-share lease does require personal services of tenant and would end on tenant's death with no further notice of termination required; court did not state how, in cash lease situation, crop is to get planted and harvested without tenant's personal services).


(damage award of $61,263 to plaintiff for death loss of pigs raised under contract; damage award upheld on appeal as supported by evidence).


(buyer of farmland enrolled in the CRP breached real estate purchase contract upon refusal to assume existing CRP contract on the property; trial court grant of summary judgment for buyer reversed and case remanded).


(defendant, farmer, determined to be "merchant" for purposes of merchant's confirmatory memo rule and, consequently, can't use statute of frauds as a defense to his failure to perform under oral contracts for sale of grain; defendant has been farmer since 1973, owns 836 acres, took ag and ag business classes in college, makes all marketing decisions and sells crops to various buyers, and is experienced in cash sales and use of futures contracts).


(case involves contractual dispute between electricity wholesaler and wind-powered electrical generation facilities; plaintiff seeks to recover liquidated damages after defendant failed to deliver (due to inherent inefficiencies of wind-generated electricity) minimum annual quantities of wind-generated electricity and renewable energy credits due under purchase and sale agreements; defendant countersued claiming that plaintiff failed to ensure sufficient transmission capacity; trial court rendered "take nothing" judgment for both parties on damage claims and a declaratory judgment in favor of defendant; both parties appeal, and on appeal court affirms take nothing judgment for defendant on their damage claim, and reverses to rule in favor of plaintiff on the construction of contract clause concerning plaintiff's duty to provide transmission capacity; case remanded).


(parties contracted for sale of cows; buyer removed 162 cows but didn’t notify other parties; seller then sold remaining cows and kept proceeds; trial court found that buyer breached contract, but seller couldn’t prove damages; affirmed on appeal – seller made no profit from sale of remaining cows and buyer’s breach resulted in windfall for seller). 


(real estate broker sought recovery of one-half of commission paid to another broker who represented purchaser in sale of three pieces of ag property; court upheld trial court determination that no implied agreement existed).


(defendant claimed that plaintiff wrongfully withheld over $200,000 in proceeds from sale of thoroughbred horses and sought motion for preliminary injunction; injunction denied; case involves battle over sale contract language concerning whether seller had right to set reserves as to any of the horses it owned that plaintiff was selling; injunctive relief denied because defendant can be made whole by award of monetary damages). 


(case involves dispute concerning joint operating agreement for oil properties dating back to 1971; essentially a contract interpretation case; defendant's obligation to offer plaintiff a share in new leases in particular area has expired and plaintiff entitled to nothing from defendant). 


(contract case involving construction of wind power station; battle is between "renewable energy" company and a financier of the proposed project; case largely procedural). 


(manure agreement that parties entered into not ambiguous and intended to be discretionary; defendant had the right, but was not required to provide plaintiff with manure on the real estate subject to the agreement). 


(trial court order enforcing oral settlement agreement requiring plaintiff to buy real estate from defendant affirmed; partial performance made settlement agreement enforceable despite the statute of frauds not being satisfied). 


(genuine issues of material fact existed on plaintiff's claims of fraudulent inducement, negligence and other claims related to plaintiff's co-signing of third party's note on which third party defaulted and defendant took action to foreclose on plaintiff's farm). 


(trial court correctly concluded that landowner breached farm lease agreement with tenant; landlord failed to communicate intentions with tenant before tenant incurred land preparatory expenses for spring planting and before tenant planted crop; tenant reasonably relied on parties' custom in preparing ground and planting crop in absence of written agreement).


(defendant, farmer, executed four hedge-to-arrive (HTA) contracts with plaintiff for sale of grain, with each contract specifying price, type, and quantity of grain to be delivered, but none specifying a delivery date; rolling fees not mentioned in contracts, but defendant extended delivery periods multiple times and was charged each time; farmer ultimately did not deliver and contracts cancelled; farmer executed promissory notes agreeing to compensate plaintiff and then sued claiming that contracts were illegal off-exchange "futures contracts" and jury agreed; appellate court reversed - contracts were valid and enforceable "forward contracts"). 


(trial court summary judgment award to defendant upheld - plaintiff not entitled to specific performance and damages under farm lease agreement; plaintiff's alleged right of first refusal to buy the land if the owner put it up for sale not supported by the evidence and not definite enough to support claim for specific performance).


(defendant inspected farmer’s grain silos which collapsed post-inspection, and court determined that state law imposed duty on defendant to exercise reasonable care when conducting inspections; farmer filed insurance claim with plaintiff and plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract and breach of warranties; defendant not entitled to summary judgment on negligence claim because jury could have concluded that misrepresentations were made by defendant in its inspection report leading to “but-for” causation).


(buyer of 96 acre tract (out of 100 acres) held right of first refusal on remaining four acres; seller sent buyer notice of intent to sell portion of four acre tract, but right of first refusal not exercised and action for declaratory relief filed and trial court granted buyer's motion for summary judgment; appellate court determined that trial court erred in determining that buyer had right to purchase entire four acre tract, and failure to exercise the option caused right of first refusal to expire). 


(letter between secured creditor of bankrupt debtor and buyer of secured crop under which lender agreed to subordinate lien on crop proceeds to allow crop buyer to pay crop harvester and seed supplier out of crop proceeds with balance of proceeds to be paid to lender constitutes enforceable contract; letter satisfies requirements of enforceable contract and crop buyer breached obligation by failing to remit net harvest proceeds to secured creditor as promised). 


(plaintiff planted sunflowers and sprayed them, post-emergent, with tank mix of chemicals that defendant manufactured; on various motions for summary judgment, court grants summary judgment on plaintiff's products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, and statutory violation claims, but denies summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of express warranties claim).


(defendant liable for breach of cash forward grain contracts; defendant did not properly invoke arbitration clause included in contracts).


(statute of frauds applicable to bar claim for plaintiff's alleged breach of agreement to purchase ranch). 


(breach of contract case involving purchase of fertilizer from plaintiff (an Iowa company) which plaintiff delivered but defendant (a Wisconsin business) refused to pick-up and pay for; defendant had sufficient contact with Iowa to be sued in Iowa).


(case involves purchase of residential property that had rodent damage and basement seepage that buyers claimed were not disclosed on disclosure statement; buyer failed to seek relief under appropriate state statute for seller's failure to complete disclosure statement with respect to septic system and seller's silence regarding septic system did not constitute grounds for relief under state statute; seller did disclose that sump pump would run frequently during heavy rains and did not contradict statement in disclosure statement that basement did not have seepage).


(plaintiff, manufacturer of and seller of products made from mint oil, entered into futures contracts with defendants for purchase of 60,000 pounds of peppermint oil at $14/lb. in crop years 2008 and 2009; defendants failed to produce any mint oil in either 2008 or 2009 and plaintiff purchased mint oil from other farmers at more than double the contract price and sued defendants for breach of contract, anticipatory repudiation and intentional interference with contractual relations; plaintiff not entitled to JML because factual issues remain relating to the necessity of plaintiff's purported need to cover from particular farms that it did due to alleged unique characteristics of mint oil and differences based on various growing regions in Nevada; plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment likewise denied). 


(plaintiff entitled to default judgment in its action to recover payment for agricultural commodities plaintiff delivered to defendant).


(case involves dispute over contract for purchase of popcorn which contained unacceptable levels of Alflatoxin upon inspection at delivery for which defendant paid rate at less than contract rate and used as livestock feed; question involved whether rejection for non-conforming goods was proper and whether defendant properly revoked acceptance of non-conforming popcorn; summary judgment for plaintiff denied due to factual issues remaining and summary judgment for defendant denied on defendant's claim that plaintiff used unapproved chemicals while growing the popcorn because factual issues remained). 


(plaintiff not entitled to specific performance of contract under which defendant agreed to sell defendant's farm for $150,000; plaintiff only able to obtain prequalification commitment from mortgage company for $120,000, and commitment letter did not guarantee funds would be available to pay full purchase price; plaintiff failed to show that family members could provide financial assistance).


(breach of contract case; evidence sufficient to support jury's award of damages to plaintiff). 


(breach of contract case involving groundwater and soil testing; on motion for summary judgment, court ruled that issues of fact remain to be resolved at trial). 


(defendants are beneficiaries of a lease allowing them to extract oil and gas from four wells on plaintiff's property; declaratory judgment entered finding that lease had expired by its terms when defendants failed to continue production; affirmative defenses of estoppel and unclean hands rejected by trial court and affirmed on appeal).


(case involves breach of contract claim for sale and delivery of cows to defendants’ dairy operation; insufficient evidence present to conclude that wife was partner with husband in dairy operation for purpose of holding wife jointly and severally liable). 


(trial court erred in granting specific performance of land sale contract; no written contract in existence that expressed essential contract terms; no fraud by "seller" because no contract in existence; no trespass by "seller" because "seller" was owner of property).


(breach of contract case involving construction of soybean biodiesel plant). 


(plaintiff failed to show, by preponderance of the evidence, that enforceable contract existed between parties for sale of 25,000 bushels of soybeans pursuant to hedge-to-arrive contract; plaintiff failed to timely send confirmatory memo memorializing telephone conversation, and defendant did not admit existence of contract).


(plaintiff presented sufficient evidence on its claims that NGFA arbitration clause contained in grain contract held to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable to overcome defendant’s motion for summary judgment). 


(case involves suit over alleged misrepresentations in connection with cattle purchases made from livestock auction in Kentucky; case transferred to Eastern District of Kentucky - defendants had insufficient contacts with Oklahoma to be subject to jurisdiction in Oklahoma).


(case involves plaintiff's action against defendant for alleged nonpayment of debts owed for purchase of farm supplies under credit agreement; default judgment not granted and case proceeded to merits of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, which was denied - dispute remained over validity of 2007 credit agreement, differences present over affidavits of plaintiff's credit manager, and only limited discovery had taken place).


(forward grain contracts rendered unenforceable when defendant's license to deal in grain was revoked making it illegal for the defendant to take delivery of the grain under the contracts and making assignments of the contracts to the assignees ineffective; arbitration clause of National Grain and Feed Association invalidated as unconscionable). 


(defendant liable to plaintiff on contract theory for damages caused by negligently performed labor when installing wind and solar generating systems on plaintiff's ranch).


(right of first refusal is an interest in real property that is subject to the statute of frauds; right of first refusal involved in real estate transaction did not contain adequate legal description - plaintiff not entitled to summary judgment). 


(contract for compensation of field work performed before sale of farm upheld and buyer determined to be in breach for failure to negotiate compensation as required by contract terms; genuine issue of material fact remains as to amount of compensation required; but, defendant did not commit conversion of plaintiff's irrigation tubes which plaintiff left on the premises after the contractually-required date for removing them).


(oil and gas lease containing implied covenant of exploration and development could not be cancelled for non-development without demand for compliance; neither abandonment nor forfeiture of lease present).


(defendant, owner of fractional interest in an oil and gas lease, found liable for $5.8 million in unpaid fees incurred by the operator of the underwater oil and gas exploration operation, which paid operation costs up front for all fractional owners; operator did not affirmatively release defendant from obligations under the parties’ joint operating agreements before defendant assigned its rights to a third party).


(mother’s sale of farmland to a son for no consideration is a nullity and not a disguised donation, as is subsequent donation of land by son to a cousin).


(trial court’s denial of tenant’s request for issuance of permanent injunction that would restrain landowner from harvesting timber and conducting clearing operations on leased premises upheld; lease gave landlord retained right to use and develop premises for “other” purposes; tenant knew at time leased signed that future logging a possibility; and logging activity would actually enhance hunting value of property to tenant).


(ownership agreement involving ranch not an enforceable contract; agreement ambiguous and lacked mutuality of obligation; extrinsic evidence did not support existence of enforceable contract).


(oil well lease contained in pool of producing properties expired and legal issue was whether expiration of lease removed the minerals from the pool and bars costs incurred before termination; trial court determination that is did reversed – pooling agreement did not depend on continuation of underlying leases, and equitable right of reimbursement for improvements not necessarily extinguished by termination of lease).


(contract case involving defendant's alleged agreement to buy plaintiffs' shares of patron preferred stock at "reasonable price"; case proceeds to trial on numerous contract issues).


Pages