Brooks Peanut Co. v. Great Southern Peanut, LLC
Georgia Court of Appeals
746 S.E.2d 272 (2013)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Brooks Peanut Co. (Brooks) (plaintiff) asked peanut broker Mazur & Hockman, Inc. (M&H) to find peanuts for Brooks to buy but not to identify Brooks as the buyer. M&H conveyed an offer from competing peanut sheller Great Southern Peanut, LLC (GSP) (defendant). GSP accepted the counteroffer Brooks conveyed through M&H and did not reject the deal when M&H revealed Brooks was the buyer. M&H faxed to GSP and Brooks a written confirmation setting forth the terms and stating the confirmation was subject to the condition that seller’s contract and buyer’s purchase order were to follow. Neither a contract nor a purchase order was issued. The parties had previously transacted business using broker confirmations. M&H continued to communicate with the parties about delivery logistics. Nearly four months later, GSP declined to perform, claiming that the parties had not entered into a contract because M&H had not been authorized to send the confirmation and GSP had not issued a written contract. Brooks sued GSP for breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to GSP, finding that GSP’s alleged promise to sell peanuts to Brooks was unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellington, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.