Jewell-Rung Agency, Inc. v. The Haddad Organization, Ltd.

814 F. Supp. 337 (1993)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Jewell-Rung Agency, Inc. v. The Haddad Organization, Ltd.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
814 F. Supp. 337 (1993)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Jewell-Rung Agency, Inc. (Jewell) (plaintiff) was a Canadian importer and wholesaler of men’s clothing. In 1990, Jewell ordered samples of Lakeland-brand outerwear from the brand’s American manufacturer, the Haddad Organization, Ltd. (Haddad) (defendant). Using the samples, Jewell received orders from its Canadian customers. Jewell submitted a purchase order to Haddad for Lakeland garments with a $250,000 retail value for the fall 1991 season. Haddad accepted Jewell’s purchase order with the understanding that Jewell would become the exclusive Canadian distributor of Lakeland outerwear. By February 1991, Jewell had secured orders for over 15 percent of the outerwear. However, Haddad granted exclusive manufacturing and distribution rights to a third party, Olympic, and failed to fill Jewell’s purchase order. Jewell learned about Haddad’s breach at a time when it was too late to obtain substitute men’s outerwear for the fall season. Jewell refused to purchase substitute Lakeland outerwear from Olympic because, according to Jewell, Olympic manufactured lower-quality items, Olympic was a competitor, and Jewell did not wish to introduce its customers to Olympic. Jewell sued Haddad for breach of contract, seeking consequential damages of over $350,000. Haddad moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages. Haddad conceded for purposes of the motion that it had breached its contract with Jewell but argued that Jewell could not recover consequential damages because Jewell could have purchased substitute goods from Olympic. Haddad also argued that Jewell’s lost profits were limited to orders that had already been placed by Jewell’s customers.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Patterson Jr., 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 811,000 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 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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