Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 432
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.070 (2026)

Contracts, execution of by counties, towns

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  432.070.  Contracts, execution of by counties, towns — form of contract. — No county, city, town, village, school township, school district or other municipal corporation shall make any contract, unless the same shall be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law, nor unless such contract be made upon a consideration wholly to be performed or executed subsequent to the making of the contract; and such contract, including the consideration, shall be in writing and dated when made, and shall be subscribed by the parties thereto, or their agents authorized by law and duly appointed and authorized in writing.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3349, A.L. 2005 S.B. 462, A.L. 2007 S.B. 22)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 2962; 1919 § 2164; 1909 § 2778

CROSS REFERENCE:

Execution of county contracts, 50.660

(1961) Where city's "Notice to Bidders" required a lump sum bid for construction of sewerage system "including approximately 18,000 cubic yards of earth work" for lagoon, whereas the completion of the project actually required 36,000 cubic yards of earth, the contractor was entitled to recover in an action which is sui generis but which sounds in tort, and contract statute did not apply. Clark v. City of Humansville, Mo.  (A.), 348 S.W.2d 369.

(1963) Where engineers performed services in connection with construction additional to that covered by terms of contract between city and engineers, out-of-pocket expenses incurred by engineers in connection therewith were not payable on ground of emergency situation justifying omission of written contract. Needles v. Kansas City (Mo.), 371 S.W.2d 300.

(1966) The terms of this section are expressly made applicable to counties, and the requirement that the terms of contracts therein referred to be in writing is mandatory and not merely directory. Thies v. St. Louis County (Mo.), 402 S.W.2d 376.

(1967) The requirements of this section are mandatory, not directory, and where there was no express written contract giving a water district exclusive right to furnish and sell water in the district, no such contract can be implied. Jackson Co.  Public Water Supply District No. 1 v. Ong Aircraft Corp., 409 S.W.2d 226.

(1970) This section is mandatory and not merely directory.  Hoevelman v. Reorganized Sch. D. R. 2 of Crawford Co.  (A.), 452 S.W.2d 298.

(1975) Held that ordinance which authorized mayor to enter contract with state highway commission but silent as to costs or details was not a valid authorization. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. City of Sullivan (A.), 529 S.W.2d 186.

(1976) Contract of city with state highway commission whereby city agreed to pay fifty percent of the right-of-way costs of highway through city, estimated in the contract to be $32,500, was not ultra vires in that it did not specify exact amount of the consideration as required by this section since standard was provided whereby the consideration to be paid by city would be definitely determined. State ex rel. Highway Commission v. City of Washington (Mo.), 533 S.W.2d 555.

(1976) Held, contract not containing required language is void and city cannot be held liable on theory of ratification, estoppel, implied contract or quantum meruit. Missouri International Investigators, Inc. v. City of Pacific (A.), 545 S.W.2d 684.

(1977) Held, requirement that teacher's contract be in writing is mandatory and must be pleaded and proved. Neal v. Junior College District of East Central Mo. (A.), 550 S.W.2d 580.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gill Constr., Inc. v. 18th & Vine Auth., 157 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 46× “The trial court agreed with the City’s argument that the contracts were not valid and, therefore, not enforceable against the City under Section 432.070 and Sections 82 and 95 of the Charter of Kansas City.”
The Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 512 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 72× “Following argument on the competing summary judgment motions, the trial court entered its judgment (“Judgment”) concluding that the Agreement violated section 432.070 9 because it exceeded the scope of City’s powers by contracting away police powers.”
Rail Switching Servs., Inc. v. Marquis-Missouri Terminal, LLC, 533 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 100× “The trial court found that the contract between RSSI and the Port Authority was void ab initio under Section 432.070. 1 The trial court then granted summary judgment, holding that, as a matter of law, MMT could not interfere with a void agreement.”
Investors Title Co., Inc. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 22× “In its first point, the County argues that Investors failed to make a submissible case because there was no evidence of a written contract as required by section 432.070 and the County cannot be liable based upon an implied contract.”
Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth. v. Rail Switching Servs., Inc., 523 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “Proceedings for declaratory and other relief between Port Authority and RSSI resulted- in summary judgment declaring RSSI’s agreement void ab initio for violating RSMo § 432.070’s mandate that contracts of a municipal corporation “be subscribed by the parties thereto, or their…”
Howard Cnty. Ambulance Dist. v. City of Fayette, 549 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 40× “The trial court determined that there was no written agreement between the Ambulance District and the City regarding ambulance services, as required by section 432.070. 1 In its two points on appeal, the Ambulance District argues that trial court erred in making such…”
Newsome v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., 520 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. 2017). · cites it 10× “Section 432.070 provides: No county, city, town, village, school township, school district or other municipal corporation shall make any contract, unless the same shall be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law, nor unless such contract be made upon a…”
Withers v. City of Lake Saint Louis, 318 S.W.3d 256 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 43× “Finally, the City argued there was no written contract pursuant to Section 432.070 RSMo (2000) 1 entitling Withers to have his property de-annexed.”
Rhodes Eng'g Co. v. Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 1, 128 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 23× “Breach of the Permanent Agreement by the Water District: The court held, as a matter of law, that the re *559 quirements of section 432.070 RSMo 1994, were not complied with, so the contract was invalid.”
Kindred v. City of Smithville, 292 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 37× “The City contends the easement agreement was void ab initio and unenforceable because it did not comply with Section 432.070, RSMo 2000. 1 For reasons explained herein, we affirm.”
City of Dardenne Prairie v. Adams Concrete & Masonry, LLC, 529 S.W.3d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 24× “As one of its affirmative defenses, the City asserted that Exhibit 1 was not an enforceable agreement because it had not been approved by the City’s Board as required by law: The terms of Exhibit 1, to the extent they purport to be a contract, are not enforceable as to the City…”
Burger v. City of Springfield, 323 S.W.2d 777 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 24× “Respondent further insists that on the facts here, Section 432.070 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., is a complete bar to recovery on either count of the amended petition.”
Show all 152 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.