Connection lost
Server error
WAGNER EXCELLO FOODS, INC. v. FEARN INTERN., INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 sued a buyer for failing to meet minimum purchase quantities under a contract with an open price term. The court found the contract valid but held the manufacturer waived rights to past minimums through its conduct and could not simultaneously claim promissory estoppel for the same promise.
Legal Significance: Establishes that promissory estoppel is unavailable as a cause ofaction when an enforceable contract governs the same subject matter. Also clarifies that under UCC § 2-208, a course of performance can constitute a waiver of express contract terms as a matter of law.
WAGNER EXCELLO FOODS, INC. v. FEARN INTERN., 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
Wagner Excello Foods, Inc. (“Wagner”) and Fearn International, Inc. (“Fearn”) entered a five-year exclusive manufacturing agreement. The contract required Fearn to purchase specified minimum quantities of fruit concentrate each year but left the price open, to be mutually agreed upon every four months. If the parties failed to agree on a price, the contract would terminate. In reliance on the agreement, Wagner invested over $900,000 in equipment and personnel. For nearly three years, Fearn consistently purchased quantities far below the contractual minimums, and Wagner never objected. In the third year, the parties executed a “revised agreement” which stated they were “satisfied with the volume of sales we have achieved” but that the original agreement was not “otherwise alter[ed] or modif[ied].” Fearn later terminated the contract, and Wagner sued for breach of the minimum quantity provisions and, alternatively, for its reliance costs under a theory of promissory estoppel.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a party to an enforceable contract recover for breach of an express promise while also pursuing a separate claim for promissory estoppel based on the same promise?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim, holding 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 dese
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a party to an enforceable contract recover for breach of an express promise while also pursuing a separate claim for promissory estoppel based on the same promise?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the strict boundary between contract and quasi-contract remedies, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliq
Legal Rule
Promissory estoppel is not a valid cause of action when an unambiguous, 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 cillu
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that a valid, enforceable contract existed. Under UCC 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under UCC § 2-305, a contract with an open price term