Olson v. Etheridge
Illinois Supreme Court
686 N.E.2d 563 (1997)
- Written by Joseph Bowman, JD
Facts
Olson and others (plaintiffs) contracted to sell a John Deere dealership to Etheridge (defendant). Etheridge later sold half the dealership to Engelhaupt (defendant). Under that contract (Agreement II), Engelhaupt was to pay the plaintiffs to satisfy Etheridge’s debt under the sale contract. Engelhaupt and Etheridge then negotiated a third contract under which Engelhaupt would pay the remaining amount owed under Agreement II to Princeton Bank instead of the plaintiffs. Etheridge failed to pay the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries of Agreement II, sued Etheridge and Engelhaupt. The Circuit Court of Bureau County entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs based on the rule set out in Bay v. Williams, 1 N.E. 340 (1884), that the rights of a third-party beneficiary cannot be changed or terminated without the beneficiary’s consent. The ruling was upheld on appeal. Engelhaupt appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bilandic, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
