Farm Equipment Store, Inc. v. White Farm Equipment Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A manufacturer accepted returns of a predecessor’s parts under an annual credit program. The court held this conduct did not modify a separate contract clause requiring the manufacturer to repurchase only its own parts upon termination, as the two clauses were fundamentally different.
Legal Significance: A party’s course of performance that waives one contract provision does not automatically waive other, distinct provisions. The scope of a waiver by conduct is limited to the specific terms related to that conduct, especially when the provisions serve different economic functions.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Farm Equipment Store, Inc. (“Farm Equipment”) entered into a dealership agreement with Allied Products Corporation (“Allied”). Allied had previously acquired assets from a bankrupt company, White Farm, for whom Farm Equipment had also been a dealer. The agreement contained two distinct parts-return clauses. The “Annual Returns” clause allowed Farm Equipment to return parts for a limited credit during the contract term. The “Repurchase on Termination” clause obligated Allied to repurchase parts upon contract termination. Both clauses explicitly limited returns to parts purchased directly from Allied, not from any predecessor. The contract also included a no-oral-modification (NOM) clause and a non-waiver clause. During the contract, Allied accepted some parts purchased from its predecessor under the Annual Returns program. When Allied terminated the agreement, it repurchased the parts Farm Equipment had bought from it but refused to repurchase the much larger inventory of parts purchased from the predecessor, White Farm. Farm Equipment sued, alleging Allied’s course of performance in accepting predecessor parts under the Annual Returns program modified the Repurchase on Termination clause as well.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party’s course of performance that arguably modifies or waives one specific contract provision automatically modify a separate, distinct provision within the same agreement, despite a no-oral-modification clause?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for Allied, holding that even if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostr
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a party’s course of performance that arguably modifies or waives one specific contract provision automatically modify a separate, distinct provision within the same agreement, despite a no-oral-modification clause?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under the UCC, a waiver by course of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehen
Legal Rule
Under the UCC, while an attempt at modification that fails to comply Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the dispute under Indiana's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party’s course of performance can waive a specific contract term