NATIONAL v. HYATT REGENCY WASHINGTON 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 postmasters’ association cancelled a hotel contract due to a scheduling conflict. The court held the conflict was not an “emergency” under the contract’s force majeure clause, requiring the association to pay liquidated damages for the cancellation.
Legal Significance: Demonstrates the application of the ejusdem generis canon of construction to interpret a force majeure clause, narrowly construing general “emergency” language to align with specifically listed catastrophic events.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The National Association of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS) entered into a multi-year contract with Hyatt Regency Washington for its annual leadership conferences. After the contract was executed, a federal arbitrator rescheduled the U.S. Postal Service’s Rural Mail Count for dates that directly conflicted with the planned 2003 and 2004 conferences, making it inadvisable for many postmasters to attend. NAPUS learned of this conflict in February 2002, a full year before the 2003 conference. After failing to negotiate new dates and rates with Hyatt, NAPUS sent a letter on February 25, 2002, terminating the contract for 2003 and 2004. NAPUS relied on a “For Cause” cancellation clause that excused performance without liability for events like “acts of God, war, government regulation… or any other emergency beyond the parties’ control.” Hyatt counter-sued for liquidated damages under the contract’s general “Cancellation Option.” The trial court granted summary judgment for Hyatt, and NAPUS appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a scheduling conflict known a year in advance qualify as an “emergency beyond the parties’ control” under a force majeure clause that also lists specific catastrophic events like acts of God and war, thereby excusing a party’s performance?
No. The scheduling conflict was not an “emergency” under the contract’s “For 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 nis
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 scheduling conflict known a year in advance qualify as an “emergency beyond the parties’ control” under a force majeure clause that also lists specific catastrophic events like acts of God and war, thereby excusing a party’s performance?
Conclusion
This case illustrates that courts will narrowly construe force majeure clauses, using Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
Under the canon of construction ejusdem generis, where general words in a 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 con
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on alternative grounds, focusing on 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A scheduling conflict known a year in advance is not an