United Parcel Service Co. v. DNJ Logistic Group, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
2017 WL 3097531 (2017)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
UPS Worldwide Forwarding (Worldwide Forwarding) (plaintiff) contracted with United Parcel Service Company (UPS) (plaintiff) to ship Worldwide Forwarding’s packages. To facilitate delivery of Worldwide Forwarding’s packages on routes that UPS did not fly, UPS entered into an agreement (the agreement) with DNJ Logistic Group, Inc. (DNJ) (defendant). Under the agreement, UPS shipped certain Worldwide Forwarding packages to certain airports and DNJ transferred the packages to airlines for shipment to their final destinations. The agreement did not identify Worldwide Forwarding as an intended third-party beneficiary, nor did it expressly preclude third-party-beneficiary claims. DNJ invoiced UPS weekly for its services, but the invoices were paid by Worldwide Forwarding rather than by UPS. Both UPS and Worldwide Forwarding became concerned that DNJ was overbilling, and the two companies sued DNJ for breach of contract. DNJ moved to dismiss Worldwide Forwarding’s claim, arguing that Worldwide Forwarding lacked standing to sue because it was neither a party to the agreement nor an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. The district court considered DNJ’s motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Strivers, 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.