We have written detailed reviews of Iowa law impacting agricultural producers and landowners. Access these reviews by clicking on the tiles below. You can also review Iowa cases on a particular subject by searching our list of Iowa case law reviews at the bottom of this page.
Search Iowa Resources
A contract involving an interest in land must be in writing to be enforceable. The rule is known as the “Statue of Frauds” and it applies to contracts for the sale of real estate as well as real estate leases. With a lease, the interest in land that is involved is not an ownership interest, but possession – the tenant gets exclusive possession of the leased premises for the term of the lease. So, a farm lease must be in writing to be enforceable. But, there are a couple of notable exceptions. Perhaps the biggest of the exceptions is that the rule doesn’t apply to contracts where perfor
Oral farm leases present many problems, not the least of which is the question of what happens when either the landlord or the tenant dies during the term of the lease. This is another reason why it’s always best to get the terms of a farm lease in writing. But, that didn’t happen here and the landlord died during the lease term. A lawsuit among family members was filed to sort out the mess – with a very predictable outcome.
Under Iowa’s Uniform Commercial Code (Iowa Code §544.2713(1)), the measure of damages for non-delivery of goods by a seller under a written contract is “the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price.” In this case, a grain elevator and grain storage company entered into a written lease agreement, whereby the elevator would rent extra grain storage space from the storage company. Under the lease, the storage company would provide all labor at the facility and would be solely responsible for any grain shortages.
In Iowa, if an agreement is said to be signed by an adverse party in a legal proceeding, that signature is deemed to be genuine unless the adverse party can support their denial of the signature’s authenticity with credible evidence. In that event, the burden shifts to the party claiming the signature is a fake to demonstrate its validity. In the event that a handwriting expert is called in to examine the signature, it is up to the trial court to determine their credibility. This analysis is particularly important in the case of a promissory note or check.
In many cases involving breach of contract where the amount of damages is an issue, courts seek an outcome that will put the contracting parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed according to its terms. Reaching that outcome often requires a thorough examination of the evidence.
The dispute in this case goes back to 2002, when a brother and sister entered into a contract for the sale of farm land. In an attempt to help her brother, a sister purchased 150 acres of land from her brother and his wife, subject to her brother’s option to repurchase the land by July 1, 2007.
A key element of contract law is that the terms in a written agreement control. While limited situations can arise that allow for equitable arguments to be made that might allow conduct contrary to written contract terms, that’s the clear minority of situations. Those principles were involved in this case.
In this case, the buyer of a tractor issued a check for $22,000 to the seller in 1997. The parties agreed, orally, that the seller would not cash the check for 30-60 days and that if the funds were not available within 30 days the buyer would owe 15% interest compounded annually. Ultimately, the check was not honored. Two years later, the parties entered into a written agreement that allowed the buyer to purchase the tractor at the same purchase price plus interest. Further, the seller agreed to fix the air conditioner in the tractor.
A person that is not a party to a contract may sue a contracting party based on their contract only if the outside party can show that they were an intended beneficiary of the contract. This concept is known as “privity” - if the contracting parties intended to convey a benefit to another party, then the benefitted party may be deemed in privity. The privity concept was involved in this case.
When negotiating a contract, the parties must ensure that “adequate consideration” has been furnished by the parties for the contract to be validly executed.
Here, the parties entered into a written farm lease of 252 acres for a one-year term. Though the written lease specified a one-year term, the tenant continued to farm the land for the following two crop years. On Aug. 6, 2008, the landlord served notice of termination on the tenant that his tenancy would terminate at the end of the calendar year. The tenant replied by letter, stating that the landlord had not complied with the requirements of Iowa Code §562.5, which requires that the date of termination of a farm lease be specified as March 1 of the following year.
Farmers routinely engage in the sale of older farm equipment. Having a solid background knowledge of exposure to liability for the seller is a good way to avoid a lawsuit. In this personal injury suit, the plaintiff was seriously injured while using the dump truck he purchased from defendants eight years earlier. The defendant acquired the older dump truck, previously used for grain hauling, in 1995. In an effort to improve his line of equipment, the defendant moved the truck to inside storage and did not use it for two years.
A fundamental principle of contract law is that a party that accepts the delivery of nonconforming goods must pay the full contract price. That’s also the result under Iowa’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. Farmers that are merchants are generally subject to the Uniform Commercial Code.
In this case, the parties divorced after 39 years of marriage. Before their marriage, the couple executed a pre-marital agreement. Both parties were represented by legal counsel, and it was agreed that the real property in the possession of each party would remain separate property upon a divorce. There was no statement of the real property ownership attached to the document, but both parties agreed that the husband owned 160-acres of farmland before the marriage. Years later, the elderly husband went to the nursing home and was scheduled to be released in May 2008.
A fundamental principle of contract law is that a valid contract requires a “meeting of the minds” between the contracting parties concerning the essential terms of the contract. There must be mutual assent – the intent of the parties is key. If the offeror has clearly manifested a willingness to enter into a contract in such a way that the other party, the offeree, knows that assent is all that is necessary to cement the deal, and the offeree accepts, the requisite mutual assent exists. But, if the offeree changes the terms of the offer in their acceptance, does a contract exist? That