Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

552 F.2d 447 (1977)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lee v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
552 F.2d 447 (1977)

Play video

Facts

Harold Lee and his sons Lester and Eric (plaintiffs) owned a 50 percent interest in Capitol City Liquor Company (Capitol City), a wholesale liquor distributor which sold a significant amount of Seagram products. Harold’s brother and nephew owned the other 50 percent. The owners desired to sell the business and in May 1970, Harold approached Jack Yogman, an executive of Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (Seagram) (defendant) to discuss a sale. Harold had known Yogman for 13 years and had supported Seagram for 36 years prior to his ownership of Capitol City. Harold offered to sell Capitol City to Seagram on the condition that Seagram would relocate Harold and his sons in a new distributorship. Approximately one month later, the owners of Capitol City met with John Barth, an assistant of Yogman, and began negotiations for the sale of Capitol City. A written agreement for the sale was finalized in September 1970. No new distributorship was secured for the Lees. They filed suit against Seagram in January 1972, alleging that Seagram had breached the oral agreement formed by Harold and Yogman. The trial judge denied Seagram’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the parol evidence rule would not preclude evidence of the oral agreement because it was unclear whether the oral agreement was meant to be integrated into the written contract. The written contract contained no integration clause. At trial, Seagram did not present evidence regarding integration. The jury found in favor of the Lees, and the court denied Seagram’s post-trial motions. Seagram appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gurfein, 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 798,000 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 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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 798,000 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
  • 46,200 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