D.W. Trowbridge Ford, Inc. v. Galyen
Nebraska Supreme Court
200 Neb. 103 (1978)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
James Galyen (defendant) owned Galyen Motor Company (defendant) and a majority of stock in Robertson Motor Company. In 1967, Galyen and Delbert Robertson, who owned the remainder of Robertson Motor stock, contracted to sell Robertson Motor to Douglas W. Trowbridge. Robertson Motor thus became Trowbridge Ford, Inc. (plaintiff). The contract also provided that Galyen Motor (1) had a right to sell new cars for a period of three years if the cars were purchased from Trowbridge Ford but (2) would discontinue such sales starting in 1970 for a period of 15 years from the contract date. In 1969, Trowbridge Ford brought a breach-of-contract action alleging that Galyen Motor sold new cars that had not been acquired from Trowbridge Ford. In 1975, Trowbridge Ford amended its petition to allege that Galyen continued selling new cars after 1970. The trial court awarded $14,814 in damages to Trowbridge Ford. The court also found that Trowbridge Ford was entitled to injunctive relief in the form of specific performance of the restrictive covenant by Galyen and Galyen Motor. However, the court awarded an additional $5,000 in damages instead, reasoning that enforcing the covenant would be difficult and would likely result in further litigation. Both sides took issue with the judgment. Among the issues that came before the Nebraska Supreme Court on appeal was the appropriateness of the $5,000 damages award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boslaugh, 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.