Ocor Products Corp. v. Walt Disney Productions, Inc. 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 seller’s acknowledgment form included an anti-copying clause. The buyer’s assistant signed it. The court found a factual dispute over the assistant’s authority to “expressly agree” to this new, material term under UCC § 2-207, denying summary judgment for both parties.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates that under UCC § 2-207, signing a confirmation form can constitute “express agreement” to a material alteration, but only if the signing agent possessed actual or apparent authority to bind their principal to such new terms.
Ocor Products Corp. v. Walt Disney Productions, Inc. 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
Ocor Products Corp. (“Ocor”) sold specialty bags to Walt Disney Productions, Inc. (“Disney”). In 1983, Disney issued a purchase order for more bags. Ocor responded with an acknowledgment form that, on its reverse side, included “Provision K,” which prohibited the customer from reproducing or remitting Ocor’s designs to third parties. Danelle Hickman, an assistant buyer at Disney, signed and returned Ocor’s form, which stated above the signature line that the buyer agreed to the conditions on the back. Prior to this exchange, Disney had already sent a sample of Ocor’s bag to a subsidiary to find a cheaper foreign manufacturer. After Hickman signed the form, Disney continued to work with the foreign manufacturer to develop a copy, which it later purchased. Ocor sued for breach of contract, alleging Disney violated Provision K. Disney argued it was not bound by the provision because its purchase order did not contain the term and Hickman lacked authority to agree to a material alteration of the contract.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under UCC § 2-207, does an agent’s signature on a seller’s confirmation form containing a material alteration constitute express agreement binding the principal, when there is a factual dispute over the agent’s actual or apparent authority to assent to new terms?
No. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment because 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 consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
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 UCC § 2-207, does an agent’s signature on a seller’s confirmation form containing a material alteration constitute express agreement binding the principal, when there is a factual dispute over the agent’s actual or apparent authority to assent to new terms?
Conclusion
The case establishes that in a UCC § 2-207 "battle of 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 exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo
Legal Rule
Under UCC § 2-207, a new term in an acceptance that materially 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
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the dispute as a classic "battle of the forms" 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a UCC § 2-207 “battle of the forms,” signing an