Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hartung v. Billmeier, 66 N.W.2d 784.

52 citing documents.

Michael Fosness, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Consideration for a contract “must differ from what the promisee is already obligated to do either by law or by existing contract.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
e sufficient to establish consideration.” 11 We address MCCL’s argument that the complaint alleges consideration because the two agreements include “mutual promises.” “A bilateral contract is one in which there are mutual promises between two parties to the contract; each party being both a promisor and a promisee.” (quoting Restatement (First) of Contracts § 12 (1932)); see Welsh v. Barnes-Duluth Shipbldg.
Minn. 2021
(defining bila teral and unilateral contracts).
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Estate of Lawrence A. Werner by Vivian Eileen Werner, Personal Representative v. Kreg A. Werner, and third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 153, (requiring party to perform contractual obligations when other contracting party has fully performed).
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Wilson v. Duluth Filter Co., 311 Minn. 475, 479 , (holding enforceable employer’s oral offer for unspecified supplemental compensation in exchange for employee’s promise to maintain level of work performance); Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 150-51 , -88 (1954) (holding enforceable employer’s promise of bonus of unspecified amount made after employee started working).
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Estate of Peterson 579 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
TRIPLE B & G, INC. v. City of Fairmont 494 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
TRIPLE B & G, INC. v. City of Fairmont 494 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 151
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 153
Crosstown Bell, Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 381 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crosstown Bell, Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 381 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 151
Fey v. Minneapolis Police Department 365 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fey v. Minneapolis Police Department 365 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 151
Swanson v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 359 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Swanson v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. 359 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Even assuming that unilateral contracts are available in Minnesota, see Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , the facts are wholly inadequate to show occurrence of an adjustor’s contract to pay for repair costs.
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 349 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Murphy v. Country House, Inc. 349 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
We have so held in Stream v. Continental Machines, Inc., 261 Minn. 289, 293 , and Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , (employer's promise of a bonus made after the employee started working held enforceable).
McEwen v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 281 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979
McEwen v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 281 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979
See Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Bergquist Associates, Inc. v. Rothchild, 302 Minn. 476 , Hughes v. Becker, 260 Minn. 83 , Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148
Wilson v. Duluth Filter Co. 250 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1977
Wilson v. Duluth Filter Co. 250 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1977
In Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 150 , this court in considering a claim that the contract was unenforceable as too vague and uncertain said in part: “* * * Although vagueness and indefiniteness may prevent the creation of a contract, it is not to be forgotten that any offer or agreement is indefinite and uncertain in so
Midway Center Associates v. Midway Center, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1975
Midway Center Associates v. Midway Center, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 1975
Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148
Jansen v. Herman 230 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1975
Jansen v. Herman 230 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1975
See, Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Associates, Inc. v. Rothchild, 302 Minn. 476 , Hughes v. Becker, 260 Minn. 83 , Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148
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
Hughes v. Becker, 260 Minn. 83 , Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148
Sylvestre v. State 214 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
Sylvestre v. State 214 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1973
294.” While cases involving private employment are not controlling, we think the rationale of the case of Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , is persuasive.
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
Elk River Concrete Products Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading 129 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1964
No. 24 v. Weinmann, 243 Minn 469, 474, 68 N. W. (2d) 248 , 252: “* * * [Bidder’s] subjective belief that the surety writing the bid bond would also write the performance^ bond does not necessarily bind [the bid bond surety] * * 13 See, Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148, 154 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 , 789: “Any lawful act or forbearance of value performed by the promisee, in addition to or different from that which he already is obligated to render either by law or contract, is a sufficient consider
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
See, e. g., Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 .” It should be emphasized, as plaintiff correctly urges, that in a unilateral contract “the exchange for the promise is something other than a promise”, 1 when the promise takes the form of an offer it is the promisee’s performance of all or part of the acts requested.
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1961
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1961
3 See, Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 .
Hughes v. Becker 108 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1961
Hughes v. Becker 108 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1961
Co. 23 Minn. 271 ; see, Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 .
Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp. 104 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1960
Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp. 104 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1960
25 See, e. g., Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 .
Holt v. Swenson 90 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1958
Holt v. Swenson 90 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1958
8 Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 .
Tynan v. KSTP, INC. 77 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1956
Tynan v. KSTP, INC. 77 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1956
See, Hartung v. Billmeier, 243 Minn. 148 , 66 N. W. (2d) 784 ; Halm v. Hincher Mfg.