Washington Chocolate Co. v. Canterbury Candy Makers
Washington Supreme Court
138 P.2d 195 (1943)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Canterbury Candy Makers (defendant) owed Washington Chocolate Company (plaintiff) $2,925. The two companies signed a contract by which Canterbury agreed to buy all of its chocolate from Washington Chocolate for five years, at Washington Chocolate’s list price. Although the list price to some extent reflected market conditions and production costs, Washington Chocolate charged its customers different prices depending on the volume of business a customer provided and other competitive considerations. Customers had no control over Washington Chocolate’s prices, and the prices could change daily. A day after signing the first contract, Canterbury’s president, C.T. Thorsen, assumed Canterbury’s debt and signed a second contract with Washington Chocolate, by which Canterbury would buy all of its chocolate from Washington Chocolate, but only until Thorsen paid off the debt he had assumed. Thorsen discharged the debt less than three years later, at which point Canterbury took its business elsewhere. Washington Chocolate sued Canterbury for breaching the first contract. The trial judge entered judgment for Canterbury, notwithstanding the jury’s contrary verdict, and Washington Chocolate appealed to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mallery, 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.
