Browning v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Washington
422 P.2d 314, 70 Wash.2d 145 (1967)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Browning (plaintiff) and Johnson (defendant) were two osteopaths. They entered into a contract where Browning agreed to sell his practice and equipment to Johnson. Before the contract was executed, however, Browning changed his mind and wanted to be released from the contract. In a second agreement, Browning offered to pay Johnson $40,000 if he would give up the contract of sale. Johnson agreed. Months later, Browning also wished to be released from this obligation. He brought suit in Washington state court seeking a declaratory judgment. The trial court held that the first contract of sale had never been valid because it lacked mutuality and was too indefinite in its terms to be enforced. The trial court also held that the second contract was supported by “adequate consideration” and thus valid and enforceable. Browning appealed, arguing that the second agreement he made to pay Johnson $40,000 was not supported by consideration and was based on the mutual mistake of the two parties.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Langenbach, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
