The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D agreed to purchase weaner pigs, i.e., weaned piglets, from P. D intended to sell these pigs to third-party finishers, who would raise the pigs to market weight. Farmland Industries, Inc. (Farmland) then would buy market hogs from third-party finishers under the terms of an existing contract between Farmland and P. D was to buy P's weaner pigs only while Farmland purchased market hogs from third-party finishers. The Agreement depended on Farmland's purchase of market hogs from third-party finishers. Farmland subsequently refused to buy market hogs from third-party finishers, declining to consent to an assignment of the P and Farmland contract. Without the ability to sell weaner pigs to third-party finishers for sale to Farmland, D had no reason to buy pigs from P. D terminated the agreement. P sued alleging a breach. D asserted frustration of purpose as an affirmative defense. P and D both moved for summary judgment. The district court first determined D had breached the Agreement; however, it granted summary judgment to D on its affirmative defense of frustration of purpose. The district court relied on Recital D and P's testimony to determine D's principal purpose in entering into the Agreement. P appealed: the district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence to determine D's principal purpose in entering into the Agreement.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.