United States Eighth Circuit

In an action for breach of a general contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the parol evidence rule had no application to the issue of contract formation; 2) it was not unreasonable, based on the evidence, for the district court to conclude defendant intended to be bound under the assumption the risk of rejection was negligible; and 3) the district court's determination that the damages at issue arose from a weather delay, and not from the dispute over the subcontract, was supported by substantial evidence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/17/2009
• Published 07/22/2010

Judges

• Kermit M. Bye

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel