Republic Bank v. West Penn Allegheny Health System
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
2012 WL 1223933 (2012)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
This case involved the following sequence of communications: (1) Republic Bank, Inc. (Republic) (plaintiff) left a voice mail inquiring whether West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. (West Penn) (defendant) had any interest in purchasing medical equipment in Republic’s possession; (2) West Penn emailed an offer to buy the equipment for $676,500; (3) Republic sent an emailed approval of West Penn’s offer; (4) West Penn emailed its acknowledgement of Republic’s approval, noting a need to iron out some details before a sales contract could be signed; (5) Republic emailed a draft contract; (6) the parties exchanged a series of emails and phone calls in which Republic pressed for completion of the deal; (7) in a final phone call, West Penn repudiated the deal on the grounds that it had not signed a contract, and Republic insisted that the parties had a binding sales agreement. Following this final phone call, Republic auctioned off the equipment and sued West Penn for the difference between the auction price of $350,000 and the previously agreed price of $676,500. The federal district court entered judgment for Republic. West Penn appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tymkovich, 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.