Ocor Products Corp. v. Walt Disney Production, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
682 F. Supp. 90 (1988)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Ocor Products Corp. (plaintiff) sold certain heavy-duty, durable shopping bags, known as Model Oscar bags, to Walt Disney Production, Inc. (defendant). The bags were intended to be sold at the soon-to-be-opened Epcot Center. Ocor was the exclusive licensee in the United States to manufacture these Oscar bags, which had a heavy-duty handle and snap-style closure on the top. Disney signed two acknowledgement forms for the orders of bags. Each of those two forms contained a provision stating that the designs of the bags were the exclusive property of Ocor and could not be reproduced, used, or sent to third parties without Ocor’s consent. However, Disney sent the bag to an agent to locate a similar product at a lower cost. Disney did find a manufacturer in Hong Kong to make a similar bag at a lower cost. Disney ordered the bags from Hong Kong and then sold them at Epcot. Ocor sued Disney, seeking lost profits as a result of the breach of the contract and damages based on unjust enrichment. Disney filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it should not be liable for any damages because it had no legal obligation to make any future purchases from Ocor.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Devine, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.