Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
133 N.W.2d 267 (1965)


Facts

Red Owl Stores, Inc. (Red Owl) (defendant) owns and operates large grocery stores, and also extends franchises to stores operated by individuals. Hoffman (plaintiff) and his wife hoped to enter the grocery business and eventually operate a Red Owl store. Hoffman entered discussions with Lukowitz, Red Owl’s agent, who told him that he only needed $18,000 capital to franchise a Red Owl store. Lukowitz said that if Hoffman would invest this money, buy a lot and building, and relocate to the town of Chilton, Red Owl would set him up with his own store. Lukowitz also advised Hoffman to obtain a smaller independent grocery store to gain experience in preparation for the Red Owl store. Hoffman followed all Lukowitz’s instructions, and moved his family to Chilton. He eventually sold the independent grocery store and the family bakery to raise money for the Red Owl project. Negotiations continued and Lukowitz drew up a financial proposal for Hoffman. Instead of the $18,000 originally required, the final proposal required Hoffman to invest over $34,000 of his own funds in the project. The proposal required Hoffman to obtain $13,000 from his father-in-law for financing, but required the father-in-law to provide this as an outright gift. This proposal was unacceptable to Hoffman and negotiations terminated between the parties. Hoffman and his wife brought suit against Red Owl and Lukowitz for damages based on their reliance on the company’s representations. At trial, the jury held for plaintiffs and assessed damages. The trial court ordered a new trial on the issue of the damages for loss, if any, of the sale of Hoffman’s independent grocery store, fixtures, and inventory. Both parties appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Currie, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.