Cantrell-Waind & Associates, Inc. v. Guillaume Motorsports, Inc.
Arkansas Court of Appeals
968 S.W.2d 72 (1998)
Facts
Guillaume Motorsports, Inc. (Guillaume) (defendant) agreed to lease property to Kenneth and Kay Bower in a transaction brokered by Cantrell-Waind & Associates, Inc. (CW) (plaintiff). The terms of the contract included a purchase option that the Bowers could exercise for a two-year period beginning August 1, 1994. The agreement further provided that CW would receive a commission if the option were exercised, provided that the purchase closed by August 1, 1996. In April 1996, the Bowers notified Guillaume that they were exercising the option and that they wished to close as soon as possible. Todd Williams, Guillaume’s president and owner, asked them to delay the closing until after August 1, but they did not agree. All conditions to the purchase were met by July 19, 1996. When the Bowers sought to close at that time, however, they were informed that Williams was out of the country and would not return until after August 1. In actuality, Williams was in the country and available. The closing occurred on August 14, 1996. When CW was not paid its commission, it sued Guillaume for breach of contract. Guillaume moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted on the grounds that Guillaume had no duty to close before August. CW appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bird, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 706,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
