Wood v Lucy - obtained revenue. The marketer filed a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Procedural History: Rule: Rationale: Wood v. Lucy Ct. of App. NY Cardozo Plaintiff marketer sought review of a judgment of the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, First Judicial Department (New York), which reversed the trial court's order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant fashion designer and which granted the motion. The marketer asserted that the designer was bound by an implied contract. An agreement existed between the fashion designer and the marketer, which gave the marketer authority to make sales and advertising decisions. Essentially, the marketer had the power to license the fashion designer's products to other marketers. The fashion designer subsequently marketed her own products but did not share in the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: obtained revenue. The marketer filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and damages resulting from the lost profits. The trial court denied the fashion designer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was reversed on appeal. On final appeal, the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that an implied contract existed between the parties. Specifically, the marketer's implied promise to faithfully market the designer's products amounted to fair consideration creating performance obligations by both parties. The court reversed the judgment on the grounds that the marketer gave valuable consideration by promising effective marketing and the splitting of profits pursuant to an implied contract....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Page1 / 2

Wood v Lucy - obtained revenue. The marketer filed a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online