GREAT AMERICAN MUSIC MACHINE, INC. v. MID-SOUTH RECORD COMPANY 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 new record company sued its manufacturer for delivering defective albums, claiming the breach destroyed its business and a planned stock offering. The court denied recovery for lost profits and the failed offering as too speculative, but allowed damages for costs incurred to mitigate the breach.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the UCC’s limitations on consequential damages for new businesses. It demonstrates that recovery for lost profits requires proof with reasonable certainty that the venture would have been profitable, and other consequential losses must be foreseeable at the time of contracting.
GREAT AMERICAN MUSIC MACHINE, INC. v. MID-SOUTH RECORD COMPANY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Great American Music Machine, Inc. (GrAMM), a new corporation formed to promote an unknown artist, contracted with defendant Mid-South Record Pressing Company to press 40,000 record albums. GrAMM informed Mid-South of its general business plan, which included a promotional mail-out and a future public stock offering. The first pressing of records was delivered in April 1972 and found to be defective (warped and pitted). By this time, approximately 12,000 defective records had already been distributed. Mid-South agreed to re-press the albums, and the second batch, delivered in May 1972, was of acceptable quality. GrAMM accepted the second pressing but refused to pay the $13,025.39 contract price. GrAMM sued for breach of warranty, seeking over $200,000 in consequential damages. These damages included its entire initial investment and losses from a failed $500,000 stock underwriting, which it alleged was caused by the delay and reputational harm from the defective first pressing. Mid-South counterclaimed for the unpaid contract price.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, may a new business recover its initial investment and losses from a failed stock offering as consequential damages for a seller’s breach of warranty when the profitability of the business and the cause of the failed offering are speculative?
No. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover its investment 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
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
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, may a new business recover its initial investment and losses from a failed stock offering as consequential damages for a seller’s breach of warranty when the profitability of the business and the cause of the failed offering are speculative?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key example of the "new business rule" 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 l
Legal Rule
Consequential damages for breach of warranty under UCC § 2-715 are recoverable 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
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's damage claims under UCC §§ 2-714 and 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 reprehe
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A new or speculative business cannot recover lost profits or investment