Hisel v. Chrysler Corp.
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
94 F. Supp. 996, 88 U.S.P.Q. 281 (1951)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Hisel (plaintiff) contacted automobile manufacturer Chrysler Corporation (defendant) stating that he had an idea to make Chrysler’s cars more aesthetically appealing. The idea was not disclosed. Chrysler responded with a letter that invited Hisel to provide details about his idea and included a form for that purpose. The form included an agreement to release Chrysler from any liability in connection with the idea or its use, except under a valid patent. This policy was also explained in the letter itself. Hisel responded with a letter containing a description of the idea—a glass-covered box in which a license plate could be held—but the form was not included. Chrysler sent Hisel a letter explaining that a signed copy of the form had not been received. Hisel then sent the form, which included an explicit statement of agreement to the terms, including the liability release. Chrysler then informed Hisel that his idea had already been well known within the automotive industry for decades. Hisel brought suit in federal district court, claiming that Chrysler had used his idea without his consent. Chrysler moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ridge, 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.
