Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • I
  • Industrial America, Inc. v. Fulton Industrie…Industrial America, Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Industrial America, Inc. v. Fulton Industries, Inc.

Delaware Supreme Court
285 A.2d 412 (1971)


Industrial America, Inc. (Industrial) (plaintiff) was a broker specializing in the sale or merger of businesses. Bush Hog, Inc. (B-H) was a farm machinery company wishing to be involved in a merger with another business. B-H hired Industrial to help with the merger. Industrial approached two companies about the merger. Neither was interested. Following these unsuccessful negotiations, B-H decided to no longer work with Industrial, but did not communicate this to Industrial. In fall 1965, Industrial saw an advertisement placed in the newspaper by Fulton Industries, Inc. (Fulton) (defendant). Fulton was seeking a merger with another business. At the end of the advertisement, Fulton said that all brokers would be fully protected. On October 7, 1965, Industrial contacted Fulton and provided details about B-H and its desire for a merger. Fulton responded that it was very much interested in B-H, and asked Industrial to arrange a meeting between Fulton and B-H. Industrial contacted B-H and shared Fulton’s interest in the merger. Fulton’s president then independently contacted B-H and set up a meeting on November 4, 1965. Industrial was unaware of this meeting until it called B-H on November 3, 1965 to inquire about its failure to respond to Industrial’s offers to assist with the Fulton merger. Despite Industrial’s repeated offers to assist with the merger, neither Fulton nor B-H communicated further with Industrial. B-H and Fulton continued negotiations with each other until March 11, 1966, when they completed their merger. Industrial brought suit against B-H and Fulton in Delaware state court. The trial court awarded Industrial its $125,000 broker’s commission against B-H. Industrial was unsuccessful in obtaining a judgment against Fulton. The trial court held that Industrial had never accepted Fulton’s “offer” in its advertisement. Industrial appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Herrmann, 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 449,000 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 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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 & Answers

Have a question about this case?

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

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial