From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Wooster Republican Printing v. Channel 17, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
533 F. Supp. 601 (1981)
The Wooster Republican Printing Company (Wooster) (plaintiff) contracted to purchase Channel 17, Inc. (Channel 17) (defendant), including Channel 17’s transmitter tower. The contract included a liquidated-damages clause stating that Channel 17 would only be liable for $50,000 in the event of a breach. The contract also included a provision that, upon a breach, Wooster would have the remedy of specific performance because there would be no adequate remedy at law. When Channel 17 breached the contract, Wooster sued for specific performance. Wooster argued that it had no adequate remedy at law because Channel 17 was unique. Wooster presented uncontroverted evidence of the uniqueness of Channel 17 because of its local and national markets and its potential for growth. Testimony at trial demonstrated that both parties understood the availability of specific performance upon a breach. However, Channel 17 argued that specific performance was inappropriate for two reasons: (1) performance was impossible, because Channel 17’s transmitter tower was located on a site owned by a third party and leased by Channel 17 with an option to purchase at the end of the lease term; and (2) the parties made a mutual mistake regarding the available remedies, because the liquidated-damages clause precluded specific performance. At trial, Wooster represented that it was willing to accept an assignment of Channel 17’s leasehold interest in and option to purchase the transmitter tower, rather than the contracted-for fee interest in the tower, with an abatement in the purchase price.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wright, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 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.
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 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.