Family Snacks of North Carolina, Inc. v. Prepared Products Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
295 F.3d 864 (2002)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Family Snacks of North Carolina, Inc. (Family Snacks) (plaintiff) entered into a supply agreement with Prepared Products Company, Inc. (Prepco) (defendant) in February 1998. Under the agreement, Prepco agreed to purchase $10 million of products from Family Snacks over the course of a year, beginning on July 1, 1998. The price of the product was set by a formula, which calculated the manufacturing cost of the particular product plus 15 percent of the cost as a profit margin. The manufacturing cost of each product was determined by another formula, which was attached as an exhibit to the contract. The contract did not specify which party had to act first. No provision dealt with whether Prepco had to provide Family Snacks with a specific order before Family Snacks would provide pricing for the product. Prepco did not order any products during the first year, and Family Snacks sued Prepco for breach of contract. Prepco argued that Family Snacks was obligated to provide pricing in order for Prepco to determine which products to order. The district court granted summary judgment to Family Snacks, and Prepco appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beam, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.