Rissman v. Rissman
United States Court of Appeal, Seventh Circuit
213 F.3d 381 (2000)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Arnold Rissman (plaintiff) and Randall Rissman (defendant) were brothers and the co-owners of a toy business. After a falling out, Arnold agreed to sell his shares in the business to Randall. During the sale negotiations, Arnold asked Randall to put in writing that Randall would never sell the business, but Randall refused. Eventually, Arnold agreed to sell his shares to Randall for $17 million, to be paid in installments. If the business were sold before all the installments had been paid, then the remaining payments to Arnold would be accelerated. The brothers’ sale contract contained an anti-reliance clause stating that: (1) both parties agreed that any promises or inducements that had been made to cause that party to enter the agreement had been put in the contract, (2) Arnold had read and fully understood the contract terms, and (3) Arnold was not relying on any statement that was not listed in the contract. A little later, Randall sold the business for $335 million. Arnold sued, claiming that he sold his shares to Randall only because Randall had deceived Arnold into believing that Randall would never sell the business. Arnold sought the $95 million that he would have made if he had kept his shares until the $335 million sale. The district judge granted summary judgment to Randall, and Arnold appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
Concurrence (Rovner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
