Opinion ID: 3013922
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 238 (Del. Ch. 1960) (examining a

Text: contracts at issue in Mantell, Allied contract for sale of a business); Hindes v. Disposal, and Marcor, its structure Wilmington Poetry Society, 138 A.2d closely resembles the structure of the 501 (Del. Ch. 1958) (examining a agreements in those three cases. In each contract for sale of a manuscript); Most of the three cases, one party bargained Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of for the exclusive right to distribute, use Free and Accepted Masons of Delaware or market the other party’s product or v. Hiram Grand Lodge Masonic Temple, service, just as Banner bargained for the 80 A.2d 294 (Del. Ch. 1951) (examining exclusive right to promote Echols in the a contract for a sale of stock); Raisler instant situation. In each of the three Sprinkler Co v. Automatic Sprinkler Co. cases, the prices of specific transactions of America, 171 A. 214 (Del. Super. Ct. that might occur within the exclusive 1934) (examining a contract for a relationship were left open, just as the license). While these older Delaware purses for any bouts that Echols might cases stand generally for the principle fight during the course of the exclusive that price is an essential term of every promotional agreement were left open contract, we believe this principle would here. And, as a practical matter in these give way if fact patterns were presented, fact settings, the price would presumably such as those in Mantell, Allied Disposal, be affected by certain factors arising and Marcor, where the price left later, beyond anyone’s control. Leaving indefinite was not the price of the the prices to be negotiated at a later time exclusive relationship, but the price of a would allow the parties to arrive at a transaction occurring within that more informed decision. So too, here, relationship, and Delaware would losses by Echols clearly would impact address these nuances in the same the value of his bouts, and later reasonable manner as the courts did in negotiations would better address any these cases. Also, because Delaware such situation. a p p e a r s t o h a v e e m b r a ce d t h e 10 Restatement of Contracts, 5 wh ich Echols’s participation in bouts secured addresses, and reflects a more modern by Banner rendered it so indefinite as to v i e w r e g a r d in g e n f o rce a b i l i t y be unenforceable. Accordingly, we will notwithstanding indefinite price terms, REVERSE the District Court’s order we predict that the Delaware Supreme granting summary judgment in favor of Court would find the instant Agreement Echols. to be enforceable. We reject not only the somewhat