From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Brookridge Funding Corp. v. Northwestern Human Services
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
175 F. Supp. 2d 355 (2001)
Brookridge Funding Corporation (Brookridge) (plaintiff) was an accounts-receivable factoring firm. Brookridge purchased two accounts due to Contracting Systems, Inc. II (CSI). CSI was owed just over $2.7 million from Northwestern Human Services (Northwestern) (defendant), which was the owner of a parcel of land on which a baseball stadium was being constructed. In some documents, Federal Development Company (Federal) was listed as the owner of the land, as an agent for Northwestern. In July 1999, Brookridge, CSI, and Northwestern all executed a notice of purchase of accounts receivable. As part of that notice, Northwestern warranted that it did owe the $2.7 million to CSI and that Northwestern waived its rights regarding any type of counterclaim, setoff, or deduction against that $2.7 million. Northwestern later refused to pay the $2.7 million to Brookridge. Brookridge and Northwestern filed competing motions for summary judgment. Brookridge argued that Northwestern had breached its contract by failing to pay and that the three-party notice was an enforceable waiver of defenses under Uniform Commercial Code Article 9. The relevant section of Article 9 provided that an agreement by a buyer or lessee that it will not assert any claim or defense will be enforceable by an assignee who 1) gives value for the assignment, 2) takes the assignment in good faith, and 3) lacks notice of a claim or defense. However, the Article 9 provision typically regards waivers within the original contract between the debtor and the assignor, rather than a separate agreement made to induce such an assignment. Northwestern argued that the notice lacked any consideration, that there was not a meeting of the minds in regard to the execution of the notice, and that the notice was thus invalid in regard to waiving the right of defenses. Brookridge asserted that the consideration was the continuation of the stadium project.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Droney, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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.