Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Pav-Saver Corporation v. Vasso Corporation

Illinois Court of Appeals
493 N.E.2d 423 (1986)


Facts

Pav-Saver Corporation (plaintiff) entered into a Partnership with Vasso Corporation (defendant) to manufacture and sell paving machines. Pav-Saver contributed certain intellectual property to the Partnership. Pav-Saver’s principal would manage the operation. The partnership agreement stated that the partnership would be permanent unless both partners agreed to terminate. The partnership agreement also stated that if one party terminated unilaterally, Pav-Saver would take back its intellectual property, and that the party not terminating would receive liquidated damages. Illinois had adopted the Uniform Partnership Act, which provided that when a partnership is terminated in violation of the partnership agreement, the non-terminating partners may continue the enterprise, as long as they pay the terminating partner the value of their interest, not counting good will value. Eventually, Pav-Saver terminated the partnership unilaterally. Vasso responded by taking over the Partnership’s operations, including retaining control over the intellectual property contributed by Pav-Saver. Pav-Saver sued to recover its intellectual property, and Vasso countersued for a declaration that it was entitled to the property. The trial court found that Vasso was entitled to retain control of the intellectual property and to liquidated damages.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Barry, 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, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Stouder, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 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.