From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...
Baker v. Ratzlaff
Kansas Court of Appeals
564 P.2d 153 (1977)
Baker (plaintiff) is a purchaser and reseller of popcorn. Baker operates a plant in Stratford, Texas but processes payments and other business in Garden City, Kansas. Ratzlaff (defendant) is a grower of popcorn. In 1973, Baker contract to purchase popcorn from Ratzlaff at a price of $4.75 per hundredweight. Ratzlaff was to deliver the popcorn in three installments. Baker was to provide payment on delivery. The contract contained a termination clause providing that if Baker failed to provide payment to Ratzlaff, Ratzlaff was entitled to terminate the contract and keep or dispose of the remaining popcorn. Shortly after Baker and Ratzlaff entered the contract, the market price of popcorn rose to over $8.00 per hundredweight. In February 1974, Ratzlaff made two deliveries of popcorn to Baker’s Stratford, Texas plant. Ratzlaff did not request payment at the time of either delivery and Baker’s foreman, Martin, did not offer payment. Martin did, however, draft weight slips for each delivery. Baker’s standard practice was to issue weight slips at the time of deliveries and to send copies of the weight slips to its Garden City office. The Garden City office then processed payments for the deliveries based on the weight slips. Ratzlaff later spoke with Baker on the phone about the timing of a future delivery, but neither party brought up the issue of payment. Shortly after this conversation, Ratzlaff sent Baker a notice that it was terminating the contract due to lack of payment on delivery. After receiving the notice of termination, Baker promptly sent two payments for the two deliveries to Ratzlaff. Ratzlaff had already secured another contract with a third party, however, to provide popcorn at a price of $8.00 per hundredweight. Baker was forced to obtain alternate popcorn at a price of $10.30 per hundredweight. Baker brought suit in Kansas state court against Ratzlaff. The trial court awarded Baker $52,000 in damages, and both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rees, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 136,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.