Party Yards v. Templeton
Florida District Court of Appeal
751 So. 2d 121 (2000)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Party Yards, Inc. (plaintiff) created beverage containers with printed logos and advertisements on them. Miller Brewing Company contracted Party Yards to create beverage containers for the Super Bowl. Party Yards needed to borrow a substantial sum to cover production costs. Party Yards acquired nearly half of the funds from one lender and contracted with Gary Templeton (defendant) for the remainder. Under the loan agreement, Templeton lent the money, which Party Yards agreed to repay with 18 percent interest. Templeton would also receive commissions on the gross revenue of all Party Yards products and a percentage of the gross invoice price. Party Yards was required to continue payments for 20 years to Templeton and to his heirs if he died. Templeton was not required to perform any services other than lending the money. The loan agreement also included an arbitration provision covering all disputes arising under the agreement. A dispute arose, resulting in a lawsuit in Florida state court. Templeton filed a motion to stay litigation and to compel arbitration. Party Yards filed a motion to stay arbitration. The trial court granted Templeton’s motion, and Party Yards appealed to the Florida District Court of Appeal, claiming that before the court could compel arbitration, the court had to determine whether the loan agreement was usurious and illegal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sharp, 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. 46,400 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.