Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation, Inc. v. Shur-Gro Irrigation Co., Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation, Inc. v. Shur-Gro Irrigation Co., Inc.

476 F.2d 120, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10736

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1973

Docket72-3213

StatusPublished

This text of 476 F.2d 120 (Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation, Inc. v. Shur-Gro Irrigation Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation, Inc. v. Shur-Gro Irrigation Co., Inc., 476 F.2d 120, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10736 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a breach of contract action brought by appellants Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation Co., Inc., against Shur-Gro Irrigation Co., Inc., for failure to consummate an oral agreement to purchase appellants’ business.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellants. The appellee successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that Schiller, a member of Shur-Gro’s board of directors, was without authority to bind the corporation in this matter and further that the oral agreement was unenforceable under the Uniform Commercial Code.

We are satisfied from a review of the record that the appellants failed to adequately establish authority on Schiller’s part to bind Shur-Gro in this transaction. The trial court in applying the standard enunciated in Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir., 1969), found the evidence insufficient to support the jury’s determination of implied authority. We concur in this finding and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI