SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co.
Citation:
127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S.W. 777
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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.
- 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. Review the Facts of this case here:
Pursuant to a written contract for one year, Charles Embry (plaintiff) was an employee of Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Company (“Hargadine”) (defendant) and received an annual salary of $2,000. Embry’s role required him to select samples for Hargadine’s traveling salesman. Prior to the expiration of his contract, Embry claimed he repeatedly tried to get a decision from Hargadine as to whether the company would retain him for longer. When Embry’s contract expired, he claimed he spoke to Hargadine’s president, McKittrick, who said: “Go ahead, you’re all right. Get your men out, and don’t let that worry you.” Embry understood McKittrick’s statement as a manifestation of an intention to retain him for another year at the same compensation and for the same duties. McKittrick, on the other hand, stated that he was late for a stockholders’ meeting that day and made his statement, “[g]o ahead, you’re all right. Get your men out, and don’t let that worry you,” after informing Embry to come see him at a later time. Embry was discharged a few months later. Embry sued Hargadine for breach of his employment contract.
- 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.
- 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.
Topic Resources
Topic Videos 
19m 28s
11m 57s
