Connection lost
Server error
Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A whiskey buyer sued a distiller for non-delivery. The court found their agreement unenforceable because a clause allowing the buyer to cancel for any “unforseen reason” made its promise to buy illusory, thus the contract lacked mutuality of obligation.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a contract is unenforceable for lack of mutuality when one party’s promise is illusory, giving that party unfettered discretion to perform. Such an agreement does not create a binding obligation on either party.
Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1908, Rehm-Zeiher Co. (buyer) and F. G. Walker Co. (seller) entered into a multi-year written agreement for the sale of specified quantities of whiskey. The contract contained a clause stating, “If for any unforseen, reason the party of the second part [buyer] find that they cannot use the full amount of the above named goods, the party of the first part [seller] agrees to release them from the contract for the amount desired by party of the second part.” In 1909 and 1910, the buyer ordered and received quantities substantially less than those specified in the contract. In 1911, after the market price for whiskey increased, the seller refused to deliver the full amount ordered by the buyer. The buyer’s president testified that his understanding of the “unforseen reason” clause was that his company was only obligated to purchase the amount of whiskey it could sell, and if it sold none, it had to take none. The buyer sued the seller for breach of contract to recover damages for the undelivered whiskey.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a contract for the sale of goods enforceable when a term allows the buyer to be released from its obligation to purchase for any “unforseen reason,” thereby leaving the decision to perform entirely at the buyer’s discretion?
No. The contract is unenforceable due to a lack of mutuality. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a contract for the sale of goods enforceable when a term allows the buyer to be released from its obligation to purchase for any “unforseen reason,” thereby leaving the decision to perform entirely at the buyer’s discretion?
Conclusion
This case provides a classic example of an illusory promise, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
A contract must contain mutuality of obligation to be enforceable. If one Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the contract was a unilateral agreement, binding only Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consec
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract lacks mutuality and is unenforceable if one party’s promise
