Studebaker Corp. of America v. Wilson

247 F. 403, 159 C.C.A. 457, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 1918
DocketNo. 2257
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 247 F. 403 (Studebaker Corp. of America v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Studebaker Corp. of America v. Wilson, 247 F. 403, 159 C.C.A. 457, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801 (3d Cir. 1918).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

The question involved in this case is the construction of a written contract. If the construction adopted by the court below was right, the verdict and judgment below should stand. If that construction is wrong, then the defendant’s prayer for binding instructions in its favor was erroneously refused.

Turning to the contract in question, we find it was one providing for the supply by a manufacturer of automobiles in Detroit to an automobile dealer in Philadelphia. From this agreement, the material parts of which we hereinafter quote (see the margin 1), it will be seen [404]*404that, while it constituted Wilson a sole territorial agent for the manufacturer’s goods, and fixed prices and terms of payment for all machines thereafter ordered, its general effect was to create a relation be[405]*405tween the parties which in reality neither obligated Wilson to order and buy any machines whatever from the manufacturer, nor did it obligate the manufacturer to deliver any machines to Wilson. Of course, if Wilson did not order any machines, the manufacturer had the right, and would naturally exercise it, to cancel and terminate the .agreement. And if the Studebaker Company did not deliver machines Wilson ordered, the latter would naturally cancel the contract. If-Wilson had scheduled his prospective sales at any number of machines, but did not see fit to order any deliveries, there was no provision in the contract by which the manufacturer, who had made machines to fill such prospective orders, could compel Wilson to take them. On the other hand, if Wilson went ahead and obtained any number of orders, and ordered machines to fill them, or if he ordered machines generally, there was no provision in the contract by which he could compel the manufacturer to deliver them.

[404]*404automobiles received by it from Dealer’s territory, and except as hereinafter provided, will not knowingly sell its automobiles to other persons in Dealer’s territory during the continuance of this agreement.
“2. Dealer’s Schedule Orders—Upon execution of this agreement, Dealer shall give to Opmpany a written order on the form of Company provided therefor, at the prices and discounts and subject to the warranty therein stated, for a sufficient number of automobiles to cover the estimated requirements of Dealer’s trade in said territory for the automobile season beginning July 1, 1915, and annually thereafter at least one month before July 1st of each year, during the continuance of this agreement, shall give Company a like order covering Dealer’s estimated requirements for the succeeding automobile season, all of which orders are and shall be a part hereof.
Jj« * * * # * * # * *
“16. Reports of Sales and Prospects.—At the end of each week during the existence of this agreement, Dealer agrees to forward to Company the names and addresses of all purchasers of Studebaker automobiles sold by Dealer during such week, with the model and serial number of each automobile sold, and shall respond promptly with all other information which' Company may from time to time require, including the names and addresses of all persons making inquiry of Dealer relative to Studebaker automobiles, to the end that Company may, at its option, forward circulars and other advertising matter to such prospects.
* * * * * * * * *
“21. Delays and Damages.—Company will use its best endeavors to deliver Studebaker automobiles to Dealer in accordance with his orders, but if for any cause Company shall fail to make such deliveries or shall fail to make them within the time stated in the order, Company shall not be liable for any damages by reason of such failure to deliver or delays in making deliveries, nor for any loss of profits. Company shall not be liable for any damages or loss arising from the sale or use of automobiles sold under this agreement.
“22. Assignment.—This agreement and orders accepted hereunder constitute an entire, indivisible and personal agreement, and Dealer agrees not to transfer or assign the same or any part thereof without Company’s written consent. It is further mutually agreed that the death, assignment or bankruptcy of Dealer during the existence of this agreement shall be considered as terminating the same without further action of Company.
s,1: $ # $ # * * * * *
“25. Term and Cancellation Provisions.—This agreement, when executed, shall supersede and annul all former agreements and orders between the parties hereto, relative to the sale of Studebaker automobiles, and the same shall become effective upon the 1st day of July, 1915, and continue and remain in force until canceled, it being mutually agreed that either party may cancel without cause upon-ten days’ written notice mailed to the other party: Provided, however, that for any violation hereof by either party, the other party may terminate this agreement immediately on mailed written notice. The termination or cancellation of this agreement, as herein provided, shall immediately cancel all unfilled orders whether or not time for shipment is past due for automobiles or parts thereof which may have been received by Company from Dealer, but nothing herein contained shall release Dealer from the payment of any sums which he may then owe Company for automobiles or parts delivered prior to such termination or cancellation. After the termination of this agreement, the sale of goods or the referring of inquiries by Company to Dealer shall not be construed as a renewal hereof, but any orders thereafter accepted by Company shall be governed by the terms and conditions of this agreement.”

[405]*405Such was the anomalous condition these parties stipulated for themselves, for their agreement provided:

••Either party may cancel without cause, upon ten days’ written notice, mailed to the other party,” and “the termination or cancellation of this agreement, as herein provided, shall immediately cancel all unfilled orders, whether or not time for shipment is past due, for automobiles or parts thereof which may have been received by the company from dealers.”

The parties continued to act under the agreement until October 11, 1915, when Wilson, in consideration of an advance forfeit payment of $500 made to him by one Colvin, gave the latter a seven-day written option to purchase his agency business for $13,250- -“purchase price agreed upon by us as covering transfer of-agency, good will, furniture, fixtures, cars and orders for cars now on our books, provided you accept the option to do so on or before October 18, 1915.” The option also provided :

"The above-mentioned option and price are conditioned upon your obtaining from the Philadelphia agency of said company, and further on your obtaining- from the owner of the building in which I am now conducting business, a lease for a period of three years,” etc.

The option further provided that in case of acceptance Wilson agreed “that all unpaid orders for cars hereafter taken over, as well as those now on hand, are to be turned over to you,” etc.

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

Related

Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp.
313 P.2d 936 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc.
194 F.2d 669 (Sixth Circuit, 1952)
Kane v. Chrysler Corporation
80 F. Supp. 360 (D. Delaware, 1948)
Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
30 F. Supp. 917 (E.D. New York, 1940)
Jay Dreher Corporation v. Delco Appliance Corp.
93 F.2d 275 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox Motor Co.
123 Tex. 608 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Ford Motor Co. v. Maddox Motor Co.
73 S.W.2d 517 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1934)
Ford Motor Co. v. Kirkmyer Motor Co.
65 F.2d 1001 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 F. 403, 159 C.C.A. 457, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studebaker-corp-of-america-v-wilson-ca3-1918.