Power Restoration Int'l, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2015 WL 1208128 (2015)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
Power Restoration International, Inc. (plaintiff) designed, manufactured, and sold electrical-system regulators. Power Restoration was a new business. Power Restoration and Pepsico, Inc. (defendant) entered into a contract under which Power Restoration would install its electrical-system regulators in 100 Pepsico facilities and audit 150 Pepsico facilities. Power Restoration had no contracts with any other customers at this time. In late 2010 and early 2011, Power Restoration installed the electrical-system regulators at three Pepsico facilities. In February 2011, Pepsico sent a letter of intent to Power Restoration confirming Pepsico’s intention to have Power Restoration make the above-mentioned installations and audits over the next year. However, two days later Pepsico issued a second letter canceling the agreement due to Power Restoration’s alleged poor performance. Power Restoration sued Pepsico and sought the recovery of lost profits. As evidence of their lost profits, Power Restoration submitted self-serving spreadsheets that rested their entire calculated profits on the alleged revenue they would have received had Pepsico not canceled the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pratter, 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.