Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Lubrizol Enterprises v. Richmond Metal Finishers

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied sub nom. Lubrizol Enters. Inc. v. Camfield, 475 U.S. 1057 (1986)


In July 1982, Richmond Metal Finishers (RMF) (defendant) entered into a contract with Lubrizol Enterprises (plaintiff) whereby RMF licensed to Lubrizol, on a nonexclusive basis, a certain metal-coating technology. The contract contained a most-favored-licensee provision under which RMF was bound to refrain from licensing the technology to another licensee on more favorable terms than those given to Lubrizol. RMF also promised to notify Lubrizol of any patent infringement, to defend any infringement suits, and to indemnify Lubrizol for losses arising out of certain misconduct by RMF. For its part, Lubrizol promised to account for its use of the technology, to deliver quarterly sales reports, to make royalty payments, and to keep records that were subject to inspection. In August 1983, RMF filed for reorganization under Chapter 11. It sought to reject its contract with Lubrizol pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, Lubrizol had never used the RMF technology. The bankruptcy court concluded that rejection was warranted on the grounds that the contract was executory and its rejection would benefit RMF. The district court reversed, concluding that the contract was not executory and that its rejection would not be advantageous to RMF because performance of the contract was not onerous and Lubrizol would remain entitled to use the technology notwithstanding rejection. RMF appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (James Dickson Phillips, 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 498,000 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 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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