Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., 109 N.W.2d 51.

21 citing documents.

Leonard Simich, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., – 7 53 (Minn. 1961).
Smart Construction & Remodeling, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he law does not favor the destruction of contracts because of indefiniteness, and if the terms can be reasonably ascertained in a manner prescribed in the writing, the contract will be enforced.” King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., (footnote omitted).
In re the Estate of: Roger D. Lewis, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc.
Katie Howard, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lake Minnetonka Homes, see also King v. Dalton Motors, Inc.
Minn. 2022
While contracts that are too vague or indefinite are void and unenforceable, King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., “it is not necessary that the parties agree on every possible point,” Hill v. Okay Constr.
James Russell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., -53 (Minn. 1961).
BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 be definite and certain in its terms or pr ovide a method of ascertaining the terms with certainty.” King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., -52 (Minn. 1961).
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
First, relying on language from King v. Dalton Motors Inc., Samuelson argues that the contract in this case “is void and unenforceable” because Exhibit 112 is “so vague, indefinite, and uncertain as to place the meaning and intent of the parties in the realm of speculation.”
Daniel D. Oberpriller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., -53 (Minn. 1961) (footnotes omitted).
Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. v. Sidwell 412 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lake Minnetonka Homes, Inc. v. Sidwell 412 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., 260 Minn. 124, 126 , (a contractual term which is so vague, indefinite and uncertain as to place the meaning and intent of the parties in the realm of speculation is void and unenforceable).
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc., 260 Minn. 124, 127
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 260 Minn. 124 , Furuseth v. Olson, swpra,.
Furuseth v. Olson 210 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1973
Furuseth v. Olson 210 N.W.2d 47 Minn. 1973
Brownlee v. Ertzos, supra; King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 260 Minn. 124 , 11 Williston, Contracts (3 ed.) § 1424.
Brownlee v. Ertzos 182 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1970
Brownlee v. Ertzos 182 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1970
In the course of the opinion, we stated ( 262 Minn. 162 , 114 N. W. [2d] 87) : “* * * It is not necessary that every possible question be answered in advance by the parties before a contract can be enforced; it is only necessary that the intent of the parties as to fundamental terms be ascertainable with reasonable certainty.” Moreover, in King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 260 Minn. 124, 126 , 109 N. W. (2d) 51, 53 , this court observed: “* * * [T]he law does not favor the destruction of contracts bec
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc. 128 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1964
See, Kuhlmann v. Educational Publishers, Inc. 245 Minn. 171 , 71 N. W. (2d) 889 ; Oleson v. Bergwell, 204 Minn. 450 , ; King v. Dalton Motors, Inc. 260 Minn. 124 , 109 N.W.