Ralston Purina Company v. United Rice Milling Products Company, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Ralston Purina Company v. United Rice Milling Products Company, Inc.

479 F.2d 1043, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8697

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 1973

Docket73-1487

StatusPublished

This text of 479 F.2d 1043 (Ralston Purina Company v. United Rice Milling Products Company, 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

Ralston Purina Company v. United Rice Milling Products Company, Inc., 479 F.2d 1043, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8697 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court finding that appellant, Ralston Purina Company, was not entitled to damages for an alleged breach of contract by appellee, United Rice Milling Products Company, Inc. We hold that the District Court did not err in finding (1) that the contracts being sued upon did not come into existence because an essential condition was not fulfilled, and (2) that appellant had received adequate notice of appellee’s intention not to perform. We also hold that the District Court did not err in not applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel. See Muhleisen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 So.2d 847 (La.Ct.App.1967).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court finding that appellant, Ralston Purina Company, was not entitled to damages for an alleged breach of contract by appellee, United Rice Milling Products Company, Inc. We hold that the District Court did not err in finding (1) that the contracts being sued upon did not come into existence because an essential condition was not fulfilled, and (2) that appellant had received adequate notice of appellee’s intention not to perform. We also hold that the District Court did not err in not applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel. See Muhleisen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 So.2d 847 (La.Ct.App.1967).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 F.2d 1043, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralston-purina-company-v-united-rice-milling-products-company-inc-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack