Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Gjertsen, 44 N.W. 306.

41 citing documents.

David Schindele, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Quoting the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, respondents instead claim that “the time of performance for Build 218’s work on the Rental Property was a ‘reasonable time.’” (holding that, “[w]here a contract is silent as to the time of performance, the law implies that it was to be performed within a reasonable time” and that, “if the contract be in writing, parol evidence of an antecedent or contemporaneous oral agreement is inadmissible to vary the
James Dennis Omwenga, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
As stated in Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead , when “a contract is silent as to the time of performance,” the law implies that performance shall be “within a reasonable time.”
GGG, Incorporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead , see also Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., WL 393928, at 4 To the extent that Samuelson argues that parol evidenc e is admissible to determine whether the parties had a sufficient meeting of the minds, we also conclude that th
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
As stated in Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, when “a contract is silent as to the time of performance,” the law implies that performance shall be “within a reasonable time.” 42 Minn. 420, 424
Leslie Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Swanny of Hugo, Inc., d/b/a Carpenter's Steak House v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420, 422
Nord v. Herreid 305 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1981
Over a century ago Justice Mitchell, in Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , stated that the parol evidence rule “does not, of course, exclude evidence of a subsequent *340 change of the contract * * Id.
Kleven v. Geigy Agricultural Chemicals 227 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1975
Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , and Johnson v. Foley Mill.
Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc. 211 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1973
Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
State, by Mondale v. Mecklenburg 140 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1966
Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
STATE, BY LORD v. Shirk 91 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1958
STATE, BY LORD v. Shirk 91 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1958
Johnson v. Chicago, B. & N. R. Co. 37 Minn. 519 , ; Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
Burns v. Kvernstoen 74 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1955
See, Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
Wojahn v. Faul 64 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1954
Wojahn v. Faul 64 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1954
See, Morris v. Wulke, 141 Minn. 27 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
Wick v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 805 Minn. 1952
Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , ; American Bridge Co. v. American District Steam Co. 107 Minn. 140 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
Sward v. Nash 40 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1950
Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , .
Dickinson & Gillespie, Inc. v. Kirkwood 283 N.W. 725 Minn. 1939
Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420, 423 , .
Smith v. Altier 238 N.W. 479 Minn. 1931
Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , .
Kitowski v. Thompson Yards, Inc. 185 N.W. 504 Minn. 1921
The case of Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , , cited by defendant is not in point.
Morris v. Wulke 169 N.W. 22 Minn. 1918
Morris v. Wulke 169 N.W. 22 Minn. 1918
Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , ; Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Co. 61 Minn. 531 , ; Lamoreaux v. Weisman, 136 Minn. 207 , .
Wadsworth v. Walsh 150 N.W. 870 Minn. 1915
Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , .
S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Fountain 150 N.W. 795 Minn. 1915
o well settled that “where a contract is silent as to the time of performance, the law implies that it is to be performed within a reasonable time;-and, if the contract be in writing, parol evidence of an antecedent or contemporaneous oral agreement is inadmissible to vary the construction to be thus legally implied from the writing itself.” Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420, 424 , .
City of East Grand Forks v. Steele 141 N.W. 181 Minn. 1913
contracts, .-and within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was ‘entered into as likely to result from its nonperformance.” To recover damages, not naturally and necessarily resulting from .•a breach of the contract, on the ground that such damages were within the contemplation of the parties when making the contract, it is said in Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , , that “there must be some special facts and circumstances, out of which they naturally proceed, kno
Gutmann v. Klimek 133 N.W. 475 Minn. 1911
Gutmann v. Klimek 133 N.W. 475 Minn. 1911
Co. 42 Minn. 46 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
American Bridge Co. v. American District Steam Co. 119 N.W. 783 Minn. 1909
Roberts v. Mazep *145 pa Mill Co., 30 Minn. 413 , ; Stone v. Harmon, 31 Minn. 512 , ; Palmer v. Breen, 34 Minn. 39 , ; Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 -163, .
Poirier Manufacturing Co. v. Griffin 116 N.W. 576 Minn. 1908
Poirier Manufacturing Co. v. Griffin 116 N.W. 576 Minn. 1908
That case was followed and applied in Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , , and again in Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Co., 61 Minn. 531 , .
Ludwig v. Spicer 109 N.W. 832 Minn. 1906
Ludwig v. Spicer 109 N.W. 832 Minn. 1906
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Schultz v. Schneckenberger, 81 Minn. 380 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407, 409 , .
Continental Insurance v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 107 N.W. 548 Minn. 1906
Continental Insurance v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 107 N.W. 548 Minn. 1906
Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , ; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45 , 26 L. Ed. 1028 .
Tingue v. Patch 101 N.W. 792 Minn. 1904
Liljengren Furniture & Lumber Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420 , ; Green v. Richards, 23 N. J. Eq.
Riley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 74 N.W. 171 Minn. 1898
Riley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 74 N.W. 171 Minn. 1898
Paul, 42 Minn. 46 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .
Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Co. 63 N.W. 1115 Minn. 1895
Aldrich v. Grand Rapids Cycle Co. 63 N.W. 1115 Minn. 1895
Stevens v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407 , .