Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Benedict v. Pfunder, 237 N.W. 2.

39 citing documents.

Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
a promise to pay may or even must be implied.” Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , 237 N.W.
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc. 524 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc. 524 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , 237 N.W.
Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Associates, Inc. v. Rothchild 225 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1975
Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Associates, Inc. v. Rothchild 225 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1975
Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146 , Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , Balafas v. Balafas, 263 Minn. 267
Capital Warehouse Co. v. McGill-Warner-Farnham Co. 149 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1967
Capital Warehouse Co. v. McGill-Warner-Farnham Co. 149 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1967
As was pointed out in Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , , the difference between a contract expressed orally and one implied in fact involves no difference in legal effect.
Paulsrud v. Tyler 241 Minn. 548 Minn. 1964
Paulsrud v. Tyler 241 Minn. 548 Minn. 1964
Moreover, it is apparent from this court’s opinions in Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke, 223 Minn. 542 , 27 N. W. (2d) 416 , and Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , , that the trial court’s findings of fact amply sustain its conclusions of law.
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
3 Restatement, Contracts, § 20, comment a; Stong v. Lane, 66 Minn. 94 , ; Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 256 Minn. 339 , 98 N. W. (2d) 257 ; Williston, Mutual Assent in the Formation of Contracts, 14 Ill.
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
Cut Price Super Markets v. Kingpin Foods, Inc. 98 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1959
2 Also see, Dybvig v. Minneapolis Sanatorium, 128 Minn. 292 , ; Thompson v. Davidson, 136 Minn. 368 , ; Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; Wallace v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. 223 Minn. 162 , 25 N. W. (2d) 465 ; Johnson v. Quaal, 250 Minn. 154 , 83 N. W. (2d) 796 .
Markmann v. H. A. Bruntjen Co. 81 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1957
Markmann v. H. A. Bruntjen Co. 81 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1957
In Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , , we held that it is not the subjective thing known as the meeting of the minds, but the objective thing, manifestation of mutual assent, which is essential to the making of a contract.
Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co. 79 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1956
Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co. 79 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1956
The following language in Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , , is of interest here: “* * * it frequently happens, as on plaintiff’s evidence it may have happened here, that, starting with an express contract, the parties soon and plainly, although tacitly, deliberately leave their original compact behind and so conduct themselves, one performing services o
Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co. 76 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1956
Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co. 76 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1956
sum of $500.00 per month, and also a commission of 2% on the net profits, free of head office overhead deductions and before income taxes, the Company shall make from the housing project now under consideration, and on any additional housing project that Employee follows through to the ‘closing’ with F.H.A.” 5 Dybvig v. Minneapolis Sanatorium, 128 Minn. 292 , ; Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; Restatement, Contracts, § 21; Lombard v. Rahilly, 127 Minn. 449 , .
Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co. 67 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1954
Roberge v. Cambridge Cooperative Creamery Co. 67 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 1954
An election may be required where both theories are alleged, Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , , but an election *233 can be compelled only where defendant might be prejudiced if it were not made.
Steller v. Thomas 45 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1950
Steller v. Thomas 45 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1950
See, Trovatten v. Minea, 213 Minn. 544 , 7 N. W. (2d) 390 , 144 A. L. R. 1263; Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke 27 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1947
Schimmelpfennig v. Gaedke 27 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1947
Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; Kinzel v. Boston & Duluth Farm Land Co. 124 Minn. 416 , .
Dusenka v. Dusenka 21 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1946
Dusenka v. Dusenka 21 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1946
R., 321 (for discussion of above case see, Fargo Foundry Co. v. Village of Callaway, 148 Minn. 273, 275 , ); Stanger v. Pandolfo, 144 Minn. 294 , ; Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , ; Dybvig V. Minneapolis Sanitorium, 128 Minn. 292 , ; McArdle v. Williams, 193.
Darian v. McGrath 10 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1943
Darian v. McGrath 10 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1943
Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , .
Trovatten v. Minea 7 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1942
Trovatten v. Minea 7 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1942
Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , .
Field-Martin Co. v. Fruen Milling Co. 298 N.W. 574 Minn. 1941
Field-Martin Co. v. Fruen Milling Co. 298 N.W. 574 Minn. 1941
Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396 , .
Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co. 270 N.W. 581 Minn. 1936
Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co. 270 N.W. 581 Minn. 1936
The distinction involves, however, no difference in legal effect, but lies merely in the mode of manifesting assent.” And in Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , , Mr. Justice Stone wrote: “ ‘Words are not the only medium of expression.
McArdle v. Williams 258 N.W. 818 Minn. 1935
McArdle v. Williams 258 N.W. 818 Minn. 1935
In Benedict v. Pfunder, 183 Minn. 396, 400 , , the principles involved here came before the court for interpretation and application.