McCallister v. Patton
Arkansas Supreme Court
215 S.W.2d 701 (1948)
Facts
McCallister (plaintiff) entered into a contract to purchase a Ford super deluxe tudor sedan automobile from Patton (defendant). Patton, an automobile dealer, received many orders for this particular automobile. Patton did not have sufficient automobiles in stock to fulfill all the orders at once. Thus, as he received more inventory, Patton agreed to fulfill the orders according to the order in which they were received. McCallister’s order number was 37. McCallister alleged that even after Patton obtained more than 37 automobiles in stock, he still refused to sell an automobile to McCallister and thus breached their contract. McCallister brought suit in Arkansas state court against Patton. McCallister sought the equitable remedy of specific performance of the contract. Patton demurred to the complaint on the ground that McCallister did not state facts sufficient to entitle him to specific performance. The trial court sustained Patton’s demurrer and dismissed McCallister’s complaint. McCallister appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Millwee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 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.
