Maple Farms, Inc. v. City School District
New York Supreme Court
76 Misc. 2d 1080, 352 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1974)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
Maple Farms, Inc. (plaintiff) signed an agreement with City School District (the school district) (defendant) on June 15, 1973, in which Maple Farms agreed to sell milk to the school district for the 1973–1974 school year. Nothing in the contract said that Maple Farms could adjust the agreement based on rising prices of raw milk. From June 15, 1973, to December 1973, the price of raw milk increased by 23 percent, which was a more significant price change than in the previous few years. At the time the contract was signed, there had been a 10 percent increase in the price of raw milk from the previous year’s lowest price. The sudden increase in price could be attributed in large part to sales of massive amounts of grain by the United States to Russia, and in smaller part to poor crop yields. Because of the sudden and significant price increase, Maple Farms asked the school district to release it from the contract so that Maple Farms could bid for new buyers at the increased price, but the school district refused. Maple Farms calculated that it would have a loss of $7,350.55 on the sales to the school district at the agreed-upon price. Maple Farms filed an action for declaratory judgment, asking the court to rule that the contract could be terminated on grounds that performance of the contract was impossible or impracticable because of unforeseen changes in circumstances.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Swartwood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.