Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Last updated
Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Court Iowa Supreme Court
Full case nameJohn Salsbury, Appellee, v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Appellant.
DecidedSeptember 18, 1974
DefendantNorthwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Plaintiff(s)John Salsbury
Citation(s)221 N.W.2d 609, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1120
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting David Harris, Don LeGrand, W. W. Reynoldson
Case opinions
Decision by David Harris

Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 221 N.W.2d 609 (IA 1974), was a case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court concerning contract law.

Contents

Background

When John Salsbury was helping to establish Charles City College, Northwestern Bell agreed to make a $5,000 contribution for the next three years but only made one payment. The school sued for breach of contract but the telephone company maintained the contract was unenforceable because they received no consideration for the donations.

Decision

The court adopted the position of the Restatement of Contracts, Second that charitable subscriptions can be enforced even without consideration or detrimental reliance. [1]

Related Research Articles

In United States telecommunication law, the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) is the August 1982 consent decree concerning the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) and its subsidiaries. The terms required the Bell System divestiture – removing local telephone service from AT&T control and putting business restrictions on the divested local telephone companies – in exchange for removing other longstanding restrictions on what businesses AT&T could control.

United States antitrust law American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition and prevent monopolies. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

Illusory promise

In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce. This is in contrast with a contract, which is a promise that courts will enforce. A promise may be illusory for a number of reasons. In common law countries this usually results from failure or lack of consideration.

Parol evidence rule Rule in the common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce

The parol evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract. The rule also prevents parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Some courts refer to these as "restrictive covenants". As a contract provision, a CNC is bound by traditional contract requirements including the consideration doctrine.

Restraint of trade

Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,

it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.

Rhode Island Supreme Court Highest court in the U.S. state of Rhode Island

The Rhode Island Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the U.S. State of Rhode Island. The Court consists of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices, all selected by the Governor of Rhode Island from candidates vetted by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Each justice enjoys lifetime tenure and no mandatory retirement age, similar to Federal judges. Justices may be removed only if impeached for improper conduct by a vote of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and convicted by trial in the Rhode Island Senate.

Consideration Concept of legal value in connection with contracts

Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.

James E. Bromwell American politician

James Edward Bromwell was a two-term Republican U.S. Representative from Iowa's 2nd congressional district. He was elected in 1960, re-elected in 1962, and defeated in 1964.

English contract law Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>De Cicco v. Schweizer</i>

De Cicco v. Schweizer, 117 N.E. 807, is a notable contract law case concerning privity of contract and consideration. The case examined whether there was consideration in a contract where person A makes a promise to person B, and in exchange person B promises to perform a previous contract obligation to person C. Additionally, the case looked at the general class of prenuptial agreements.

Charles City College was a private liberal arts college that operated from 1967 to 1968 in Charles City, Iowa. It was one of several Midwestern colleges established by local civic leaders with the support and encouragement of Parsons College in Fairfield, Iowa. These Parsons "satellite schools" were by-products of the strong growth and apparent success of Parsons during the late 1950s and early 1960s, and all followed the "Parsons Plan" academic model developed at that school. None of the schools, however, were ultimately successful.

Contract Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations among its parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured.

<i>Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc</i> 1957 American contract law case

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to offer. The case held that a clear, definite, explicit and non-negotiable advertisement constitutes an offer, acceptance of which creates a binding contract. Furthermore, it held that an advertisement which did not clarify the terms of its bargains, such as with fine print, could not then be modified with arbitrary house rules.

United States contract law

Contract law regulates the obligations established by agreement, whether express or implied, between private parties in the United States. The law of contracts varies from state to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law.

The Bell System was a system of telecommunication companies, led by the Bell Telephone Company and later by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), that dominated the telephone services industry in North America for over one hundred years from its creation in 1877 until its antitrust breakup in 1983. The system of companies was often colloquially called Ma Bell, as it held a vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services in most areas of the United States and Canada. At the time of the breakup of the Bell System in the early 1980s, it had assets of $150 billion and employed over one million people.

Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] UKHL 1 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.

The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1 (1888), were a series of US court cases in the 1870s and the 1880s related to the invention of the telephone, which culminated in the 1888 decision of the US Supreme Court upholding the priority of the patents belonging to Alexander Graham Bell. Those telephone patents were relied on by the American Bell Telephone Company and the Bell System although they had also acquired critical microphone patents from Emile Berliner.

References

  1. Ayres, I. & Speidel R.E. Studies in Contract Law, Seventh Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2008, p. 141