# Hearty Burger of Harvey, Inc. v. Brown

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · December 8, 1981 · 407 So. 2d 806

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7514879

## Case

- **Full name:** HEARTY BURGER OF HARVEY, INC., Bruce A. North and Robert E. McBride v. Rudy P. BROWN
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** December 8, 1981
- **Citations:** 407 So. 2d 806; 1981 La. App. LEXIS 5624
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schott
- **Judges:** Barry, Klees, Kliebert, Redmann, Schott
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7514879

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that evidence supported trial court's conclusion that defendant knew 34 exact amount of principal obligation to be assumed, and defendant could not complain that disagreement over the amount of interest outstanding rendered the contract to assume plaintiff's obligation…
- holding that evidence supported trial court’s conclusion that defendant knew exact amount of principal obligation to be assumed, and defendant could not complain that disagreement over the amount of interest outstanding rendered the contract to assume plaintiffs obligation fat…

## Opinion text

SCHOTT, Judge,
with whom RED-MANN, Judge, joins, dissenting:
As stated in the majority opinion, plaintiffs have consistently maintained that they agreed to sell the restaurant equipment to defendant for the total of principal ($17,-940.87) plus interest ($1,856.80). Defendant has maintained, with equal consistency, that the agreed price was $13,000.00.
We respectfully disagree with the statement by our colleagues that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that an agreement was confected for the purchase price of $17,940.87. On the contrary, there was no evidence to that effect.
Basic contract law requires a meeting of the minds of the purchaser and seller on the price of the thing for a sale to be confected. *809 Since neither party has ever taken the position that the agreed price was $17,940.87 the trial court could not properly conclude that was the price agreed upon.
The judgment should be reversed and the sale annulled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7514879. Public record. Not legal advice.