Friedman v. Farmer, No. 14-2575 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseFarmer owned Arkat Nutrition, which owned the Plant One feed mill in Arkansas. Arkat Land owned Plant Two, which was leased to Arkat Nutrition, which produced animal feed. In 2007, a tornado damaged Plant One. Arkat decided not to repair the plant because its equipment had little useful life remaining. Debris from the tornado was removed, leaving scrap with potential value. Friedman made an oral contract with Farmer to act as a broker for the remaining Plant One equipment. Arkat Nutrition says that it was understood that it could also continue to attempt to find a buyer on its own. Friedman disagrees. Friedman sold some equipment and received a commission of $25,000. In 2010, Arkat Nutrition and Arkat Land transferred assets to a new company, Animal Nutrition, the equity interests of which were sold to Dad’s Products, which was not to be responsible for any investor or third-party claims against Animal Nutrition. Farmer claims that sale was planned since 2002. Dad’s later changed its name to Ainsworth and hired a third-party to remove remaining Plant One scrap. Friedman sued. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, rejecting alter-ego claims and claims of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel, and noting the limitations period.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. Assuming that the situation in this case would meet an exception to the prohibition of unjust enrichment in contract cases because the oral contract could no longer be completed, there is no evidence the Farmers received money or its equivalent in an unjust fashion; nor was there any evidence that they acted outside the scope of their employment with defendant Arkat; plaintiff abandoned a piece of equipment at Arkat's plant and abandonment is a complete defense to plaintiff's claim the equipment was improperly converted; no error in denying motion to amend complaint on the ground amendment would be futile
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.