Neri v. Retail Marine Corp. Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
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 boat dealer’s customer repudiated a sales contract. The court held that even though the dealer resold the boat for the same price, the dealer, as a “lost volume seller,” was entitled to recover the profit it lost on the breached sale, plus incidental costs.
Legal Significance: This case is a foundational application of UCC § 2-708(2), establishing that “lost volume sellers”—dealers with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of standard-priced goods—can recover lost profits when the standard contract-market price differential remedy is inadequate to make them whole.
Neri v. Retail Marine Corp. 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
The plaintiffs, the Neris, contracted to purchase a new boat from the defendant, Retail Marine Corp., for $12,587.40. They made a total deposit of $4,250. Shortly after the contract was made, the plaintiffs repudiated the agreement, citing that Mr. Neri was about to undergo surgery and would be unable to make payments. By this time, the defendant had already ordered and received the specific boat from the manufacturer. The defendant refused to refund the plaintiffs’ deposit. Four months later, the defendant sold the boat to another buyer for the same price originally agreed upon with the plaintiffs. The defendant demonstrated that its profit on the sale to the plaintiffs would have been $2,579 and that it incurred $674 in incidental expenses for storage, upkeep, and insurance while holding the boat. The defendant counterclaimed for damages, arguing that but for the plaintiffs’ breach, it would have sold two boats and earned two profits. The lower courts awarded the defendant only $500 in statutory damages under UCC § 2-718, prompting this appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, is a retail dealer of standard-priced goods entitled to recover its lost profit and incidental damages from a breaching buyer when the standard contract-market price differential measure of damages is inadequate?
Yes. A retail dealer is entitled to recover its lost profit 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 n
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, is a retail dealer of standard-priced goods entitled to recover its lost profit and incidental damages from a breaching buyer when the standard contract-market price differential measure of damages is inadequate?
Conclusion
This decision is a landmark interpretation of UCC seller's remedies, cementing the 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 exerc
Legal Rule
If the measure of damages provided in UCC § 2-708(1) (the difference 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 deserun
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the interplay between UCC § 2-718 (Buyer's 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A “lost volume seller” (e.g., a retail dealer with a large