 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Wrench v. Taco Bell: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Intellectual Property | |subject=Intellectual Property | ||
|other_subjects=Contracts | |other_subjects=Contracts | ||
|facts=* Wrench, LLC = "Wrench" = developer of a character called “Psycho Chihuahua” in 1995 | |facts=*Wrench, LLC = "Wrench" = developer of a character called “Psycho Chihuahua” in 1995 | ||
* Taco Bell Corp. = "Taco Bell" | *Taco Bell Corp. = "[https://www.tacobell.com/ Taco Bell]" | ||
* Agent of Taco Bell inquired about the Chihuahua at a trade show in June 1996 | *Agent of Taco Bell inquired about the Chihuahua at a trade show in June 1996 | ||
* Negotiations ensued. | *Negotiations ensued. | ||
*In 1997, Taco Bell went public with a Chihuahua character from another advertising agency | |||
* | * | ||
* | |||
|procedural_history=*Wrench sued Taco Bell in the United States District Court for the [https://www.miwd.uscourts.gov/ Western District of Michigan] | |||
*Wrench claimed that Taco Bell breached an [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/implied-in-fact-contract Implied-in-Fact Contract] | |||
|issues=Can an [[Contracts/Implied-in-fact contract|implied-in-fact contract]] be created even if the parties never explicitly state a desire to enter into a contract? | |||
|holding=Yes; the words & actions of parties can create an implied-in-fact contract even if the parties never explicitly state a desire to enter into a contract. | |||
Because of <u>pre-emption by the Copyright Act</u>, this Court grants summary judgment to Taco Bell. | |||
|judgment=in favor of Taco Bell | |||
|reasons=Judge Quist: Because Wrench's claim is based on an alleged copyright violation, its claim is pre-empted by the Copyright Act. | |||
|rule=Parties can create a contract without explicitly expressing a desire to do so. | |||
|comments=[[Copyright Law/State Law and Its Preemption]] | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/wrench-llc-v-taco-bell-corp | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/wrench-llc-v-taco-bell-corp | ||
Latest revision as of 00:11, February 3, 2024
| Wrench v. Taco Bell | |
| Court | Western District of Michigan |
|---|---|
| Citation | 51 F.Supp.2d 840 (1999), 256 F.3d 446 (2001) |
| Date decided | July 6, 2001 |
Facts
- Wrench, LLC = "Wrench" = developer of a character called “Psycho Chihuahua” in 1995
- Taco Bell Corp. = "Taco Bell"
- Agent of Taco Bell inquired about the Chihuahua at a trade show in June 1996
- Negotiations ensued.
- In 1997, Taco Bell went public with a Chihuahua character from another advertising agency
Procedural History
- Wrench sued Taco Bell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
- Wrench claimed that Taco Bell breached an Implied-in-Fact Contract
Issues
Can an implied-in-fact contract be created even if the parties never explicitly state a desire to enter into a contract?
Holding
Yes; the words & actions of parties can create an implied-in-fact contract even if the parties never explicitly state a desire to enter into a contract.
Because of pre-emption by the Copyright Act, this Court grants summary judgment to Taco Bell.Judgment
in favor of Taco Bell
Reasons
Judge Quist: Because Wrench's claim is based on an alleged copyright violation, its claim is pre-empted by the Copyright Act.
Rule
Parties can create a contract without explicitly expressing a desire to do so.
Comments
Resources
