From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
ConFold Pacific, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
433 F.3d 952 (2006)
ConFold Pacific, Inc. (ConFold) (plaintiff) was a consultancy and design firm. Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris) (defendant) manufactured snowmobiles and other vehicles. Polaris originally shipped its products in disposable containers. Polaris hired ConFold to conduct a reverse-logistics study analyzing the benefits of switching to returnable containers. Polaris and ConFold signed a mutual nondisclosure agreement called the Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement-Logistics Consulting Version. The agreement's preamble stated that ConFold had information relating to its proprietary software systems, documentation, and related consultancy services necessary to perform the reverse-logistics analysis. The contract also contained a statement that it represented the entire agreement between the two parties regarding the exchange of proprietary information “relating to the program.” ConFold completed the reverse-logistics analysis pursuant to the agreement. Two months after the agreement was signed, Polaris requested proposals for designs for returnable containers. Polaris received nine proposals, including one design proposal from ConFold. Polaris ultimately rejected all nine proposals. A few years later, Polaris came out with a returnable container produced by a third party. The design was very similar to the design submitted originally by ConFold. ConFold brought suit against Polaris in federal district court, alleging that Polaris breached the nondisclosure agreement by sharing ConFold's returnable-container design with the third party. The district court found that the agreement was ambiguous on its face and considered external evidence about the meaning of the contractual language, but the court ultimately held that Polaris did not breach any confidentiality obligation because the nondisclosure agreement applied only to ConFold's reverse-logistics analysis and not to its design plans. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Polaris, and ConFold appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, 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 516,000 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 516,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 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.