Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Contracts Keyed to Barnett

View this case in different Casebooks

Contracts Keyed to Dawson Contracts Keyed to Murphy Contracts Keyed to Ayres Contracts Keyed to Kunz Contracts Keyed to Burton Contracts Keyed to Fuller Contracts Keyed to Kunz Contracts Keyed to Kuney Contracts Keyed to Summers

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.

Citation:

127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Embry managed the dry goods sample department for McKittrick. According to Embry, the McKittrick president hired him for another year at the same compensation and for the same duties. Three months later, he was discharged.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Which jurisprudential development best explains the court's willingness to enforce the alleged contract in Embry, despite ambiguous language and the employer’s subjective denial of intent?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) A shift from classical contract theory toward a promissory estoppel-based doctrine prioritizing detrimental reliance over bargain.

Incorrect. A is incorrect because estoppel was not the court’s primary framework.

(B) An evolution from subjective mutual assent to objective manifestations of intent, grounded in the reasonable person standard.

Correct! The Missouri Court of Appeals applied objective theory of contract formation, holding that the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable person in Embry's position would interpret the employer’s words as an offer. This represented a shift from classical "meeting of the minds" to external manifestations of assent.

(C) The application of UCC Article 2 principles to non-sale-of-goods contexts through analogical reasoning.

Incorrect. C is incorrect because the UCC was not invoked in this employment context.

(D) The expansion of implied-in-law contracts to situations involving ambiguous employment statements.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because implied-in-law contracts (quasi-contracts) were not at issue.

Q.2 - Under a strict application of the Embry precedent, which scenario is most likely to create binding contractual obligations for an employer, despite the absence of formal renewal procedures?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) An HR manager casually emails “you’ll be with us next year too” to an employee, but never sends a formal letter.

Correct! A reasonable employee could interpret an HR manager’s statement, even casually worded, as a renewal, mirroring the facts in Embry where ambiguous language was held sufficient under objective standards. The sender’s role in HR adds weight to the statement.

(B) A CEO posts a Slack message stating “Great work this quarter. We’ll talk next year about your position.”

Incorrect. B is incorrect because the CEO’s message defers decision-making, not affirmatively promising renewal.

(C) A payroll administrator tells an employee “I don’t handle your contract, so I can’t say.”

Incorrect. C is incorrect because the administrator disclaims authority—eliminating apparent assent.

(D) An employer distributes unsigned contracts in December with no further communication.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because silence without more cannot establish reasonable reliance.

Q.3 - From the perspective of legal formalism versus functionalism, how would a formalist critique the appellate court's reasoning in Embry?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) It misapplied estoppel principles by recognizing implied contracts based on ambiguous oral statements.

Incorrect. A is incorrect because the court did not apply promissory estoppel at all.

(B) It allowed equitable doctrines to override express statutory employment procedures.

Incorrect. B is incorrect because no statute was overridden—this was common law interpretation.

(C) It improperly elevated private reliance over commercial certainty, undermining the at-will doctrine.

Correct! A formalist would argue that the court jeopardized predictability in contractual relations by allowing reliance on vague statements to bind employers, particularly in at-will employment contexts. The critique targets the court’s departure from explicit procedures and documentation.

(D) It relied too heavily on the form of the exchange instead of its substance.

Incorrect. D is incorrect because the case emphasized substance (reasonable interpretation), not form.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.

6m 23s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outlines

Formation of Contracts Interpretation of the Contract

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.