In 1974, Berliner Foods Corporation (Berliner), pursuant to an oral contract, became a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. Over the next decade, both parties flourished as the marketing of high-quality, high-priced ice cream took hold. Berliner successfully promoted the sale of Häagen-Dazs to supermarket chains and other retailers in the Baltimore–Washington, DC, area. In 1983, the Pillsbury Company acquired Häagen-Dazs. Pillsbury adhered to the oral distribution agreement and retained Berliner as a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. In December 1985, Berliner entered into a contract and sold its assets to Dreyer’s, a manufacturer of premium ice cream that competed with Häagen-Dazs.
Dreyer’s ice cream had previously been sold primarily in the western part of the United States. Dreyer’s attempted to expand its market to the east by choosing to purchase Berliner as a means to obtain distribution in the mid-Atlantic region. When Pillsbury learned of the sale, it advised Berliner that its distributorship for Häagen-Dazs was terminated.
Berliner, which wanted to remain a distributor for Häagen-Dazs, sued Pillsbury for breach of contract, alleging that the oral distribution agreement with Häagen-Dazs and Pillsbury was properly assigned to Dreyer’s. Who wins? Why?
– Essay Answers | www.essayanswers.org
Dreyer’s ice cream had previously been sold primarily in the western part of the United States. Dreyer’s attempted to expand its market to the east by choosing to purchase Berliner as a means to obtain distribution in the mid-Atlantic region. When Pillsbury learned of the sale, it advised Berliner that its distributorship for Häagen-Dazs was terminated.
Berliner, which wanted to remain a distributor for Häagen-Dazs, sued Pillsbury for breach of contract, alleging that the oral distribution agreement with Häagen-Dazs and Pillsbury was properly assigned to Dreyer’s. Who wins? Why?
law 350 discussion 2
In 1974, Berliner Foods Corporation (Berliner), pursuant to an oral contract, became a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. Over the next decade, both parties flourished as the marketing of high-quality, high-priced ice cream took hold. Berliner successfully promoted the sale of Häagen-Dazs to supermarket chains and other retailers in the Baltimore–Washington, DC, area. In 1983, the Pillsbury Company acquired Häagen-Dazs. Pillsbury adhered to the oral distribution agreement and retained Berliner as a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. In December 1985, Berliner entered into a contract and sold its assets to Dreyer’s, a manufacturer of premium ice cream that competed with Häagen-Dazs.
Dreyer’s ice cream had previously been sold primarily in the western part of the United States. Dreyer’s attempted to expand its market to the east by choosing to purchase Berliner as a means to obtain distribution in the mid-Atlantic region. When Pillsbury learned of the sale, it advised Berliner that its distributorship for Häagen-Dazs was terminated.
Berliner, which wanted to remain a distributor for Häagen-Dazs, sued Pillsbury for breach of contract, alleging that the oral distribution agreement with Häagen-Dazs and Pillsbury was properly assigned to Dreyer’s. Who wins? Why?
Place your Order Now
In 1974, Berliner Foods Corporation (Berliner), pursuant to an oral contract, became a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. Over the next decade, both parties flourished as the marketing of high-quality, high-priced ice cream took hold. Berliner successfully promoted the sale of Häagen-Dazs to supermarket chains and other retailers in the Baltimore–Washington, DC, area. In 1983, the Pillsbury Company acquired Häagen-Dazs. Pillsbury adhered to the oral distribution agreement and retained Berliner as a distributor for Häagen-Dazs ice cream. In December 1985, Berliner entered into a contract and sold its assets to Dreyer’s, a manufacturer of premium ice cream that competed with Häagen-Dazs.
Dreyer’s ice cream had previously been sold primarily in the western part of the United States. Dreyer’s attempted to expand its market to the east by choosing to purchase Berliner as a means to obtain distribution in the mid-Atlantic region. When Pillsbury learned of the sale, it advised Berliner that its distributorship for Häagen-Dazs was terminated.
Berliner, which wanted to remain a distributor for Häagen-Dazs, sued Pillsbury for breach of contract, alleging that the oral distribution agreement with Häagen-Dazs and Pillsbury was properly assigned to Dreyer’s. Who wins? Why?