Grafe Auction Co. v. Quality Beef Prods. Coop.

Full title: Grafe Auction Company, Plaintiff, v. Quality Beef Products Cooperative and…


Civil No. 12-2831(DSD/SER)

Date published: Oct 16, 2013


  1. Grafe Auction Company (Grafe) contracted with MB Holding, LLC (MB Holding) to auction a kosher beef kill plant in Buffalo Lake, Minnesota.
  2. The Auction Contract provided that Grafe would advertise the auction, accept sealed bids, and conduct a live auction with the highest bidders.
  3. Defendants, including Randall Jones acting on behalf of Quality Beef Producers Coop, submitted a sealed bid of $2.8 million at the live auction.
  4. After the auction, Quality Beef entered into a Sale Agreement with MB Holding, agreeing to pay a 10% buyer’s premium to Grafe Auction Company.
  5. Defendants never paid the purchase price or the buyer’s premium to Grafe.
  6. The plant was later sold to another buyer for $1.7 million, and Grafe received a buyer’s premium of $85,000.
  7. Grafe filed a verified complaint alleging breach of contract against defendants.

Issue: Whether defendants breached the contract with Grafe by failing to pay the purchase price and the buyer’s premium.


  1. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
  2. Grafe sufficiently pleaded a viable breach of contract claim against defendants based on the submitted bid form and the Auction Agreement terms.
  3. The bid form signed by Jones demonstrated defendants’ agreement to be bound by the auction terms, including the payment of the buyer’s premium.
  4. Although Grafe was not a party to the Sale Agreement between Quality Beef and MB Holding, the provision requiring payment of the buyer’s premium reflected the existence of an agreement between Grafe and defendants.
  5. Grafe also argued that it could sue as a third-party beneficiary of the Sale Agreement, but the court did not reach this argument since Grafe had already stated a plausible claim for breach of contract.
  6. The court also found that Grafe had pleaded a plausible claim of personal and individual liability against Jones, as it was unclear whether he was bidding in a personal or agency capacity.
  7. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was denied.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 − eleven =