Court Opinion

ID: 9552048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:03:57.373159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:28.123416
License: Public Domain

*189HOLMAN, J..
specially concurring.
The record in this case does not demonstrate the results which would stem from the failure of the Trade Board to issue a shop card to defendant. The agreement between the parties contemplated that defendant should apply for a shop card. The application and the agreement were signed at the same time, for each was but one part of a single transaction. If, through no voluntary action of his own, defendant failed to receive a shop card and the corresponding right to represent himself as fully complying with union requirements, the agreement would not be binding upon him, since he would not have received the obviously anticipated quid pro quo for agreeing to make the payment which plaintiffs seek to recover. However, since the record demonstrates that defendant’s failure to receive a shop card was the result of his failure to appear before the Trade Board and to furnish them with requisite information, I concur in the disposition of the case. Defendant should not be permitted, because of his failure to take the action contemplated by the parties at the time the agreement was signed, to avoid his obligation under the agreement.
Howell, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.