Farmers Cooperative Association v. Garrison
Arkansas Supreme Court
454 S.W.2d 644 (1970)
- Written by Kheana Pollard, JD
Facts
On April 5, 1967, Randall Garrison (plaintiff) contracted with Farmers Cooperative Association (Farmers) (defendant) to be a part of its layer-feeder program. The contract stated that Garrison would purchase his chicken feed from Farmers at retail price and that Farmers would provide Garrison with 21,000 hens as well as financing. The contract also stated that Garrison had read it and agreed to be bound by its terms. Garrison agreed to provide Farmers with a promissory note worth $34,650 for the hens and 29,800 pounds of chicken feed to be paid by May 1, 1968. Garrison provided the note on May 9, 1967. On August 2, 1967, Garrison provided another note for $12,000 that would be payable on November 1, 1967. On November 18, 1968, Farmers brought suit against Garrison because the notes remained largely unpaid. Garrison said that he had not paid because Farmers had agreed to refinance Garrison with more hens but had failed to do so. Representatives from Farmers denied that there was ever an agreement to continue to refinance the hens. At trial, Garrison introduced testimony that showed that the Farmers representatives approached other farmers in the area and offered to continuously refinance their hens. The lower court found in favor of Garrison, and Farmers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holt, 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.
