DePugh v. Mead Corp.
Ohio Court of Appeals
607 N.E.2d 867, 79 Ohio App. 3d 503 (1992)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Mead Corporation (defendant) drafted a written agreement to buy clay “borrow” from Ray and Jo Ann DePugh (plaintiffs) to cap a landfill, but none of the parties signed it. Titled “Borrow Agreement,” the contract described the “sale of borrow” and licensed Mead to enter the DePugh property to build a road, remove and reserve several feet of topsoil, excavate the clay that lay underneath, and create a lake. The contract also conditioned the entire deal on regulatory approval. Mead never performed any part of the agreement. Instead, after six weeks, Mead sent a letter stating, “You and The Mead Corporation have agreed to settle the dispute with respect to the proposed Borrow Agreement whereby The Mead Corporation considered purchasing clay from you. . . . This letter is to confirm our agreement with respect to such settlement as follows: The rights and obligations described in the proposed Borrow Agreement are hereby terminated and shall be of no further force and effect.” The DePughs sued for breach of contract. The court granted Mead summary judgment, reasoning the agreement had to be signed to be enforceable. The DePughs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harsha, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
