Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Scott v. Crown

Colorado Court of Appeals
765 P.2d 1043 (1988)



Crown Company (Crown) (defendant) entered into several contracts with Scott (Plaintiff) to purchase grain. The contracts provided that payment would be conditioned upon Scott’s delivery of the total quantity of grain purchased. The first of these contracts was completed, with delivery and payment made with no problems. The parties entered into two subsequent contracts under which Scott refused to perform. Scott had suffered nonpayment on an unrelated contract. When Scott was addressing the nonpayment with his banker, the banker told Scott that Crown was not the “best grain trader.” An agent for the Department of Agriculture had told Scott that there was a complaint against Crown for failing to pay to other farmers. When Crown sent trucks to load the grain, Scott refused. Scott told Crown’s driver that he had some questions to settle with Crown. Scott tried contacting Crown by telephone several times, but was unsuccessful. Crown did contact Scott through letter, stating that it had not breached the contract, but that Scott had by failing to deliver the grain. Crown sent a second letter stating that he considered the contracts breached, but that he would still perform if Scott would deliver the grain. Scott sent a letter to Crown insisting that Crown provide an adequate assurance of performance by paying for the grain before delivery. Scott sent this letter to Crown two weeks after he had refused to load the grain. Crown cancelled the contracts. Scott filed suit, alleging breach of contract because Crown did not pay for the grain prior to performance in response to Scott’s requests for adequate assurance of performance. Crown counterclaimed. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Scott and dismissed Crown’s counterclaim. Crown appealed to the Court of Appeals of Colorado.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Plank, J.)

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 448,000 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 448,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial