Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Dwaine Paul and Farm Power Irrigation, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Shur-gro Irrigation Co., Inc., Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 476 F.2d 120
April 3, 1973
J. M. Kolander, R. C. Hamilton, Amarillo, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
James C. Sanders, Robert R. Sanders, Amarillo, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Before BELL, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
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.