Stine Seed Co. v. A & W Agribusiness, LLC, No. 16-1137 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseStine Seed filed suit against A&W and its principles, alleging contract claims related to A&W's failure to pay for corn and soybeen seed. The district court found in favor of Stine Seed on its implied-in-fact contract claim against Defendant Williams in the amount of $28,160, and found in favor of Williams and A&W on the remaining claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Williams did not sign the July Adjustment and in finding Williams' version of events credible; no implied-in-fact contract existed between Williams and Stine Seed with respect to the seed planted by J&A; and the district court did not err in finding Williams not liable for unjust enrichment. The court held, however, that the district court should have given A&W's admission that Alexander had apparent authority conclusive effect, and its finding that Alexander lacked authority to bind A&W to the Note was clear error. Therefore, the verdict in favor of A&W on Stine Seed's breach of contract claim must be reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - diversity. The district court's finding that Williams did not sign relevant documents was not clear error, nor is the finding that Williams did not ratify the Note by his words or actions; there was no legal error in the conclusion that Williams was not liable to Stine Seed under an implied-in-fact contract claim, as he was unaware of the seed purchase and could not have manifested assent to terms of which he was unaware; the district court did not err in concluding there was a lack of sufficient evidence showing unjust enrichment. The district court erred in finding Alexander had no authority to bind A&W, because it should have found Alexander had apparent authority to do so, as A&W admitted to such apparent authority in discovery responses. Judgment in favor of A&W on Stine Seed's claim for breach of contract is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
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.