Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Parev Products Co. v. I. Rokeach & Sons

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
124 F.2d 147 (1941)


Facts

Parev Products Company, Inc. (Parev) (plaintiff) formed a contract with I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc. (Rokeach) (defendant), under which Parev gave Rokeach exclusive use for 25 years of Parev’s secret formula for a kosher coconut shortening in exchange for royalties on all sales of the shortening. Rokeach named the shortening Nyafat. The contract prohibited Parev from competing with Rokeach’s sale of Nyafat or a similar product, and prohibited Rokeach from selling, manufacturing, or distributing Nyafat or a similar product once the contract expired or terminated. Nyafat, and Parev via the royalties, did well for the first 15 years, but then Rokeach began distributing Kea, a cottonseed-oil shortening. Parev sued Rokeach, asking the district court to find an implied negative covenant that Rokeach would not compete with Nyafat or interfere with Nyafat sales. Parev argued that Rokeach began selling Kea in order to escape paying royalties to Parev. Rokeach responded that it began distributing Kea because the lower price made Kea better able to compete with the then-new Crisco and Spry shortenings. Rokeach argued that any implied covenant would only prohibit tortious competition, and alternatively, that Kea was not truly similar to Nyafat. The district court dismissed Parev’s complaint based on its view of the parties’ intent. Parev appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 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 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.