Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

133 N.W.2d 267 (1965)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

133 N.W.2d 267 (1965)

Play video


Red Owl Stores, Inc. (Red Owl) (defendant) owned and operated large grocery stores and also extended franchises to stores operated by individuals. Joseph Hoffman and his wife (plaintiffs) owned a bakery in Wautoma, Wisconsin; they hoped to enter the grocery business and eventually operate a Red Owl store. Hoffman entered discussions with Lukowitz, Red Owl’s agent. Lukowitz told Hoffman 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 relocate to the town of Chilton, Red Owl would set him up with his own store. Lukowitz also advised Hoffman to get some experience by purchasing a smaller independent grocery store and operating it before buying a Red Owl store, and Hoffman did so. Lukowitz suggested that Hoffman could also work in a Red Owl store in the Fox River Valley to prepare him for his own Red Owl store. Hoffman thus moved his family to the town of Neenah instead of Chilton. However, as Lukowitz suggested, Hoffman did pay $1,000 for an option to buy a vacant lot in Chilton for the eventual location of the Red Owl franchise. After Hoffman had operated the independent grocery store successfully for a few months, Lukowitz advised Hoffman to sell the small grocery store and the bakery in preparation for buying the larger franchise store. Hoffman did as Lukowitz suggested. 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 nearly $34,000 of his own funds in the project. 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 found for Hoffman and his wife and assessed damages. The trial court ordered a new trial on the issue of the damages for losses, if any, related to the sale of Hoffman’s independent grocery store, fixtures, and inventory. Both parties appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Currie, C.J.)

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 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership