Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McArdle v. Williams, 258 N.W. 818.

24 citing documents.

Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The difference between an express contract and an implied-in-fact contract has “‘no difference in legal effect[] but lies merely in the mode of manifesting assent.’” (quoting Restatement (First) of Contracts § 5 cmt.
Minn. 2022
unless there is some writing” that proves its existence), with McCardle v. Williams, 258 N.W. 818, 820 (Minn. 1935) (common law case explaining oral contracts are enforceable “where [there is] no particular requirement of form”), and McCarthy Well Co., d at 315 (indicating the UCC does not govern contracts that are not for the sale of goods).
Lewis v. West Side Community Health Services, Inc. 802 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Lewis v. West Side Community Health Services, Inc. 802 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
& Entm’t Corp., (“The agreement necessary to form a contract need not be express, but may be implied from circumstances that clearly and unequivocally indicate the intention of the parties to enter into a contract.”); McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433, 438 , 258 N.W.
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
Olson v. Synergistic Technologies Business Systems, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 2001
McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433, 438-39 , 258 N.W.
Johnson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 329 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1983
Johnson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota 329 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1983
Implied-in-law contracts are not, of course, contracts at all; “[t]hey are obligations created by law for reasons of justice.” McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433, 438 , 258 N.W.
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
McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , ; Roberge v. Cambridge Co-op.
Delyea v. Turner 118 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1962
Delyea v. Turner 118 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 1962
In McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433, 438 , , we said: “ ‘Words are not the only medium of expression.
Balafas v. Balafas 117 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1962
Balafas v. Balafas 117 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1962
McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , ; Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 Minn. 234 , 21 N. W. (2d) 528 ; Roberge v. Cambridge Co-op.
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 essential differences between contracts implied in fact and quasi-contracts, which sometimes are referred to as contracts implied in law and are based on the right to recover for unjust enrichment, are sufficiently discussed in McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , ; Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 Minn. 234 , 21 N. W. (2d) 528 ; and Roske v. Ilykanyics, 232 Minn. 383 , 45 N. W. (2d) 769 .
Knaus Truck Lines, Inc. v. Donaldson 51 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1952
Knaus Truck Lines, Inc. v. Donaldson 51 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1952
Dybvig v. Minneapolis Sanatorium, 128 Minn. 292, 294 , ; In re Estate of Havenmaier, 163 Minn. 218, 220 , ; Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co. 198 Minn. 580 , ; see, Town of Balkan v. Village of Buhl, 158 Minn. 271 , , 35 A. L. R. 470; cf. McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , ; Peet v. Roth Hotel Co. 191 Minn. 151 , .
Roske v. Ilykanyics 45 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1951
Roske v. Ilykanyics 45 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1951
The distinction is clearly pointed out in McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , .
Dusenka v. Dusenka 21 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1946
Dusenka v. Dusenka 21 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1946
In McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , , a case relied upon by plaintiff, the mortgagor, whose farm was about to be lost through expiration of the period of redemption from mort *238 gage foreclosure, plowed 150 acres only after negotiating with the mortgagee and obtaining an understanding that he would receive as compensation therefor the
Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co. 270 N.W. 581 Minn. 1936
Zieve v. Holstad Coffee Co. 270 N.W. 581 Minn. 1936
[Citing cases.]” See also McArdle v. Williams, 193 Minn. 433 , .