Corenswet, Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
594 F.2d 129 (1979)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Corenswet, Inc. (Corenswet) (plaintiff) is an intermediate distributor of products manufactured by Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (Amana) (defendant). The business relationship of Corenswet and Amana was governed by a distributorship agreement permitting either party to terminate the agreement “at any time for any reason” after providing ten days’ notice. Between 1969 and 1976, the business relationship between Corenswet and Amana was successful and profitable. In 1976, however, Amana began negotiations with another distributorship. Amana did not inform Corenswet of these other negotiations. Amana did, however, inform Corenswet that it was terminating the distributorship agreement. Amana provided no reason for the termination, but relied on the termination provision expressly stated in the contract. In October 1976, Corenswet brought suit in federal district court against Amana seeking damages for breach of contract. Corenswet argued that Amana’s termination of the distributorship agreement was wrongful because it was arbitrary. The district court held that Amana’s termination was arbitrary and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the termination from going forward. Amana appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wisdom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.