Frey v. Goldring

Missouri Court of Appeals

Frey v. Goldring

142 S.W.3d 779, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2004 WL 1338074

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82542

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.W.3d 779 (Frey v. Goldring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frey v. Goldring, 142 S.W.3d 779, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2004 WL 1338074 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Frey (Frey) appeals from a trial court judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his breach of contract claim against Joyce Goldring. Frey argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the alleged contract was invalid because it was missing an essential term, namely a fixed price or a method to ascertain the price. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that because Frey did not make a submissible case for breach of contract, the trial court did not err in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Pikey v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 922 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Frey (Frey) appeals from a trial court judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his breach of contract claim against Joyce Goldring. Frey argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the alleged contract was invalid because it was missing an essential term, namely a fixed price or a method to ascertain the price. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that because Frey did not make a submissible case for breach of contract, the trial court did not err in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Pikey v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 922 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.W.3d 779, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2004 WL 1338074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frey-v-goldring-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack