Cash v. Benward
Missouri Court of Appeals
873 S.W.2d 913 (1994)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
David Cash (plaintiff) was in the National Guard. Vicki Benward (defendant) was Cash’s unit clerk. Benward’s supervisor was James Sisk (defendant). While Cash was at a monthly drill in August or September, Benward gave him a private company’s brochure for spousal life insurance. A spousal life insurance policy would pay benefits to Cash if his wife died. Cash did not realize that the insurance was unassociated with the National Guard. Cash asked Benward how to get one of the insurance policies. Benward told Cash to fill out the form and send it to her with a check for the first premium, saying she would send it on to the company. Cash did so, but his check never cleared. During the November drill, Cash asked Benward and Sisk about his application and check. Benward said she knew nothing. Sisk said that Benward had thrown out Cash’s application, but that Sisk would give Cash a new application in December. Cash agreed to wait until then. At the December drill, Sisk gave Cash a new application and told Cash that Cash was responsible for completing the application himself. Tragically, Cash’s wife got sick that night and died before Cash got the insurance. Cash sued Benward and Sisk for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Benward and Sisk on the basis that there was no consideration or mutual obligation to create a contract. Cash appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ulrich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.