Black Industries, Inc. v. Bush
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
110 F. Supp. 801 (1953)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Black Industries, Inc. (Black) (plaintiff) was invited to bid on contracts to supply the Hoover Company with a large order of anvils, primers, and supports. Hoover would then incorporate the parts into machinery being produced under a contract for the United States military. Black signed a subcontractor agreement with George Bush (defendant). Under the agreement, Bush would produce over a million anvils, over 700,000 primers, and 700,000 plungers, each for a fixed price. Black’s obligations were to service the contract and handle all communications with Hoover. The agreement also specified that if Hoover paid more than Bush’s quoted price, Black would receive the difference between Bush’s quote and Hoover’s payment. Hoover’s ultimate purchase price gave Black about an 84 percent profit on the anvils, a 40 percent profit on the primers, and a 70 percent profit on the supports. However, Bush failed to deliver the parts as agreed. Black sued Bush in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Bush’s breach had caused Black to lose approximately $15,000. Bush moved for summary judgment, alleging that the contract was void on public-policy grounds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Forman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.