WAGNER EXCELLO FOODS, INC. v. FEARN INTERN., 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 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.
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
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
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