Berryman v. Kmoch | Case

University:
Eastern Kentucky University
Course:
LGS 300 | Introduction to Legal Studies
Academic year:

2020
Views:

133

Pages:

1
Author:

kaleidoscope71ex

Berryman v. Kmoch Supreme Court of Kansas 1977 1) Facts a) Plaintiff signed a written option agreement drawn up by Defendant. b) The agreement stated that “[f]or $10.00 and other valuable consideration” an option would be granted for 120 days. c) However, the $10.00 was not paid. Prior to the duration of the 120 days, Plaintiff contacted Defendant and asked to be released from his obligation under the option agreement. d) The parties were unable to work out anything definite. Plaintiff then sold the land to another person. e) After Plaintiff sold the land, Defendant attempted to exercise the option. Defendant was informed that the land had already been sold. f) Defendant continued in his attempts to exercise the option. 2) History a) Parties i) Wade Berryman (1) Plaintiff ii) Norbert Kmoch (1) Defendant (2) Optionee b) Claims i) Plaintiff claims that an option contract should be nulled and void ii) Defendant claims there was consideration for the contract and it should be conveyed c) PH i) Trial court entered a judgment for plaintiff 3) Issues a) Was there consideration for the contract i) The need for consideration was not met in this contract. The 10.00 was not sufficient consideration and would have had the effect of a continuing offer subject to withdrawal before anytime. b) Can an option contract be enforced? i) An option contract is unenforceable under either theory. There was no consideration to create an option contract as stated above. For promissory estoppel, the defendant knew that the option contract would not work and therefore unreasonably relied upon it. With a lack of reliance PE cannot be established either. 4) Judgment: