{
  "id": 1656618,
  "name": "Haering Oil Company, Inc. v. Beasley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Haering Oil Co. v. Beasley",
  "decision_date": "1953-02-16",
  "docket_number": "4-9965",
  "first_page": "607",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 Ark. 607"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "254 S.W.2d 951"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "211 Ark. 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1473344
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/211/0743-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 S. W. 2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 Ark. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1431993
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/187/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 S. W. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 Ark. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1371664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/170/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4278,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.17981041002589e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5883831451177269
    },
    "sha256": "ca0f6a9eabf5dbab9740a3df327e6ef1453ae155d2b7fb2a517f24ace0183753",
    "simhash": "1:171d6ec7e05e371c",
    "word_count": 734
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:24.085624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Haering Oil Company, Inc. v. Beasley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.\nAfter hearing all the evidence, the Chancery Court dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s case for want of equity; and the correctness of that ruling is the point at issue on this appeal.\nAppellant, The Haering Oil Company, Inc. (hereinafter called \u201cHaering\u201d), was the Bulk Sales Agent, originally for \u201cShell\u201d petroleum products, and later for \u201cPan-Am\u201d petroleum products. Appellee Beasley owned a filling station in Hot Springs; and in September, 1947, signed a contract with Haering to sell the products for which the latter was the Bulk Sales Agent. The said 1947 contract provided, inter alia:\n\u201cDuration of Agreement. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of (1) one year, beginning September 1, 1947, and ending August 31, 1948, and thereafter from year to year subject to termination by either party at the end of the first year or any subsequent year on thirty (30) days\u2019 prior written notice.\u201d\nBeasley handled Haering\u2019s products until March 23, 1949, and then commenced handling \u201cLion\u201d petroleum products. On March 21, 1950, Haering filed the present suit against Beasley, praying, inter alia, for damages for breach of contract: the theory being, that the contract could not be terminated except on August 31st of any yea,r and that Beasley owed Haering damages from March 23, 1949, to August 31, 1949. Beasley\u2019s defense was that the contract had been terminated by mutual consent; and the decree of the Chancery Court so found.\nAccording to the 1947 contract, Haering was to furnish equipment (consisting of hydraulic lifts, tanks, pumps and air compressor) to be used by Beasley for the sale of Haering\u2019s products; also Haering was to furnish all the petroleum products that Beasley sold at the filling station during the continuation of the 1947 contract. On February 22, 1949, Beasley wrote Haering:\n\u201cIt is my desire to purchase all my petroleum products in the future from the Lion Oil Company.\n\u201cI will appreciate it if you will invoice all of your equipment at my place to the above company. \u2019 \u2019\nIn accordance with the said letter, Haering (a) invoiced (i. e. sold) his equipment at the Beasley Service Station to the Lion Oil Company, and (b) discontinued supplying Beasley with, petroleum products on March 23, 1949. There was some office equipment not described in the 1947 contract, and Beasley returned this to Haering.\nThus by mutual consent, the 1947 contract was terminated by Beasley and Haering on March 23, 1949, even though it was not the anniversary date of the contract. It is evident that when Haering, in accordance with Beasley\u2019s letter of February 22,1949, sold the equipment to the Lion Oil Company and ceased furnishing petroleum products to Beasley, Haering thereby agreed to the termination of the 1947 contract. There was mutuality in the cancellation. Haering\u2019s sale of equipment to the Lion Oil Company was entirely inconsistent with his present claims under the 1947 contract.\nIn Elkins v. Aliceville, 170 Ark. 195, 279 S. W. 379, we said:\n\u201cIt is well settled that the parties to a contract may at any time rescind it in whole or in part by mutual consent, and the surrender of their mutual rights and the substitution of new obligations is a sufficient consideration.\u201d\nIn Afflick v. Lambert, 187 Ark. 416, 60 S. W. 2d 176, we said:\n\u201cIt is therefore a well settled rule of this Court that any parties who can make a contract can rescind or modify it by mutual consent. If they are capable of making the contract in the first instance, they may by mutual consent modify it in any manner. Parties to a written contract may rescind it by oral agreement, or they may modify it by oral agreement. Black on Rescission & Cancellation, vol. 1, p. 20; 13 C. J. 593; 6 R. C. L. 914.\u201d\nTo the same effect, see Myers v. Myers, 211 Ark. 743, 202 S. W. 2d 596. See, also, 13 Am. Jur. 981 et seq.; 17 C. J. S. 878 et seq.; and discussion in Restatement of the Law of Contracts, \u00a7 406 et seq.\nThe Chancery Court found that Haering and Beasley terminated the 1947 contract by mutual consent. The decree is correct, and is in all things affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. A. Tucker, for appellant.",
      "Wootton, Land & Matthews, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Haering Oil Company, Inc. v. Beasley.\n4-9965\n254 S. W. 2d 951\nOpinion delivered February 16, 1953.\nH. A. Tucker, for appellant.\nWootton, Land & Matthews, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0607-01",
  "first_page_order": 631,
  "last_page_order": 633
}