Ohlendorf v. Feinstein
Missouri Court of Appeals
636 S.W.2d 687 (1982)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Bernard Feinstein (defendant) purchased seven tracts of land. Shortly thereafter, Feinstein agreed to partner with Howard Ohlendorf (plaintiff) and Fred Whaley (defendant) in reselling the tracts for a profit. Ohlendorf and Whaley each bought shares in the partnership. In addition, Ohlendorf agreed to buy Tract 3. The partnership sold three other tracts to third-party buyers. Three tracts remained unsold. Ohlendorf subsequently breached the partnership agreement by reneging on his promise to buy Tract 3 and declaring that the partnership was dead. Ohlendorf sued Feinstein and Whaley to recover the money he paid for his partnership share. Feinstein and Whaley cross-claimed to wind up the partnership’s affairs and claimed damages for the profits they lost due to Ohlendorf’s breach. The trial judge dissolved the partnership and awarded damages to Feinstein and Whaley. Ohlendorf appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that Feinstein and Whaley failed to prove their lost profits. The appellate court then proceeded to consider Ohlendorf’s argument that Feinstein and Whaley could have avoided losing any profits by continuing the partnership and selling the three unsold tracts on their own account.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pudlowski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.