Cliffstar Corp. v. Riverbend Products, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
750 F. Supp. 81 (1990)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Riverbend Products, Inc. (defendant) contracted to sell 3.2 million pounds of tomato paste to Cliffstar Corporation (plaintiff). The contract lacked any force-majeure provision. Riverbend already knew that the current tomato-growing conditions were uncertain, even though experts predicted a good harvest. A week later, the Arizona harvest produced a poor yield. Seven weeks later, experts abandoned their earlier optimism and forecast disappointing results for the all-important California tomato crop. Within 10 days, Riverbend notified Cliffstar that the tomato shortage would force Riverbend to cut tomato-paste production and reallocate product deliveries based on each customer’s needs and sales history. Ultimately, Cliffstar received less than one million pounds of tomato paste. Cliffstar sued Riverbend in federal district court. Riverbend asserted the impracticability defense provided by California’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-615. The parties disputed whether Riverbend had contracted to sell more tomato paste than Riverbend could have delivered to its customers even in a good harvest year. The parties also disputed whether Cliffstar had agreed to accept its reduced allocation. Cliffstar moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Curtin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
