case brief

Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Case Brief on Clark vs. Coop Case
Case Citation: Clark vs. Wallace County Cooperative Exchange, 986 P.2d 391 (Kann. App. 1999).
Facts: The appellant, Ray C is a corn farmer while The Wallace County Cooperative Exchange (coop) is a body that deals with buying and selling of grains in general. These two parties entered into an agreement in January 1995 that required Clark to deliver and sell 4000 corn bushels to Coop in the event of harvesting. Due to freezing conditions in Kansas, Clark could only manage to raise 2207.41 bushels. The appellant presented to the court that coop excused him from delivering the rest of the corn following the unexpected weather conditions and therefore he demanded the extra $1622.97 that had been withheld by Coop due to a breach of contract. On the other hand, coop insisted that Clark was never excused and therefore the withholding of the extra funds was justified. The two parties appeared to the court to settle this dispute; they used the basic law to argue their cases.
Issue 1: Do agreements between farmers and grain elevators specify the location that the crop should be grown?
Issue 2: Does the law exempt farmers from delivering the agreeable amount of crops to the grain elevators due to unforeseeable factors like extreme weather conditions?
Issue 3: Are Kansas farmers mandated to predict future adversities in weather conditions and therefore required to foresee complete or partial crop failure?
Decision: No/No/Yes
Rationale Concerning the Decision: (Judge Glenn D.

Schiffner of the District Court of Wallace) Despite the fact that it was not the intent of the farmer to produce the less amount of corn bushels as per the agreement, the written contract was quite clear and free from ambiguity. Legally, the farmer should not claim compensation from the grain elevators since the risk of the crops are born by the farmers before harvesting and delivery.