Sigmon v. Royal Cake Co. (In re Cybermech, Inc.)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
13 F.3d 818 (1994)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Royal Cake Company, Inc. (Royal) (defendant) entered into a conditional sales contract to purchase machines from Cybermech, Inc. (Cybermech). The contract provided that Cybermech would install a protype machine at Royal’s facility for a trial period and that Royal did not have to purchase the machines if it was unsatisfied. On July 23, 1987, Cybermech wrote a letter to Royal setting forth the terms if Royal wanted to order the machines, including the price, delivery date, and payment terms that included a downpayment covering one-third of the purchase-price. On July 30, 1987, Royal placed an order for machines and sent Cybermech a check for $33,306.67, which Royal expressly intended to cover the requested downpayment. Cybermech deposited Royal’s check into its bank account. On August 24, 1987, Cybermech sent Royal a letter stating that it could not execute the deal along with a check for $33,306.67 representing the return of Royal’s downpayment. On September 16, 1987, Cybermech filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee, Wayne Sigmon (plaintiff), sued Royal to recover the money that Cybermech returned to Royal as an avoidable preference pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). The bankruptcy court ruled for Sigmon and ordered Royal to pay Cybermech $33,306.67 plus prejudgment interest. The district court affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, 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.