Tweet
Amazing prints LP sells attractive framed prints at retail locations. They also sell bulk print orders to other companies at a 10% discount with the following terms:
“ Buyer must give prints free of charge to their employees and / or customers and / or potential customers. Buyer may not re-sell prints. ”
Office Properties LLC buys a bulk order of the prints, but uses them to decorate their own office buildings.
Amazing prints LP sues Office Properties LLC for breach-of-contract claiming that Office Properties misrepresented how they were going to use the prints when they bought them. Office Properties argues that the language of the purchase contract included the term “potential customers,” and that Office Properties would be free to lease office space from itself, and therefore could be considered a potential customer.
Based on these set of facts alone, who would you expect to prevail?
If you think Amazing prints would prevail, what would you expect damages to be? Perhaps the 10% difference between the bulk and retail price?
“ Buyer must give prints free of charge to their employees and / or customers and / or potential customers. Buyer may not re-sell prints. ”
Office Properties LLC buys a bulk order of the prints, but uses them to decorate their own office buildings.
Amazing prints LP sues Office Properties LLC for breach-of-contract claiming that Office Properties misrepresented how they were going to use the prints when they bought them. Office Properties argues that the language of the purchase contract included the term “potential customers,” and that Office Properties would be free to lease office space from itself, and therefore could be considered a potential customer.
Based on these set of facts alone, who would you expect to prevail?
If you think Amazing prints would prevail, what would you expect damages to be? Perhaps the 10% difference between the bulk and retail price?
Comment