Murray Envelope Corp. v. Atlas Envelope Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00168-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of contract - Existence of contract Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2001 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Richard W. McKenzie Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF ATLAS ENVELOPE CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,000 Case Number: 3-94-4215 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Murray Envelope Corporation |
ALEXANDER IGNATIEV
JOHN MICHAEL HERKE
LAWRENCE CARY GUNN |
||
| Appellee: | Atlas Envelope Corporation and Hampton Lamar Hurt | KENNETH BRIDGES ROY GREGG ROGERS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Breach of contract - Existence of contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Atlas Corporation sued Murray Envelope Corporation for breach of contract. A jury awarded Atlas $210,000. Murray appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case is whether Murray had a duty to Atlas under a renegotiated contract. In order to have an obligation under a contract there must first be a contract. A valid contract must include two or more contracting parties, consideration, an agreement that is sufficiently definite, parties with legal capacity to make a contract, mutual assent, and no legal prohibition precluding contract formation. If any essential terms are left unresolved, then no contract exists. At no point in the trial was even a scintilla of evidence presented to support the existence of a renegotiated contract. At the end of the three year 1983 contract, by Atlas' own omissions, annual price negotiations were held which were inconsistent with the 1983 contract. After the three years provided in the contract Atlas and Murray continued to have business dealings and they negotiated price each year and nothing else. There was no mention of mandatory time; it was a series of at-will agreements. Therefore, the case is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
