Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Orange Crush Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
296 F. 693 (1924)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (Miami Coca-Cola) (plaintiff) entered into a license agreement with Orange Crush Co. (Orange Crush) (defendant) whereby Miami Coca-Cola would purchase concentrate from Orange Crush and use it to manufacture, bottle, and distribute a drink trademarked under Orange Crush. In addition to providing its concentrate to Miami Coca-Cola at specified prices, Orange Crush was to provide some advertising support. The license term was perpetual, but the agreement provided that Miami Coca-Cola could cancel it at any time. Approximately one year into the contract term, during which Miami Coca-Cola had purchased concentrate from Orange Crush and was in the process of manufacturing the drink, Orange Crush gave notice that it would not be bound by the contract any longer. Miami Coca-Cola sued Orange Crush, seeking specific performance of the agreement. The district court ruled that the contract was void because of lack of mutuality. Miami Coca-Cola appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.