From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Bonanza Restaurant Co. v. Wink
Delaware Superior Court
2012 WL 1415512 (2012)
Facts
Bonanza Restaurant Company (Bonanza) (plaintiff) and Robert Wink (defendant) entered into four franchise agreements under which Wink agreed to establish four restaurants and assign each restaurant to a separate individual. The four assignees were to operate the restaurants and pay royalties to Bonanza based on the restaurants’ sales. Wink agreed to guarantee the royalty payments of any assignee who defaulted. All four of the assignees defaulted,Wink did not honor his guarantee, and Bonanza sued Wink for breach of contract, seeking lost royalties of $1.3 million. Wink moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bonanza was not entitled to recover the lost royalties, because the contract limited damages to “actual damages sustained” and disallowed consequential damages. The trial court ruled on Wink’s motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stokes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 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.