The First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a finding that an implied contract was formed between a manufacturer and a distributor, and an award of damages to the distributor based on that contract. Primarque Prod. Co. v. Williams West & Witts Prod. Co., 988 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2021). For almost 40 years, Williams West & Witts Products Co. (WWW) and Primarque Products Co. had a manufacturerdistributor relationship for the sale of soup base products. Except for a six-year period, the relationship was not governed by a written contract — WWW simply manufactured products in response to purchase orders from Primarque and delivered those products to Primarque’s customers. In 2015, Primarque began purchasing more soup base products from WWW’s competitors, resulting in a decrease in its purchases from WWW. Two days after learning of this, WWW terminated its relationship with Primarque and began selling products directly to Primarque’s former customers. Primarque sued WWW, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and tortious interference with business relations. At trial, the jury
awarded Primarque damages on both of those claims, and the court denied WWW’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law.
The central issue on appeal was whether Primarque had an enforceable contract and whether that contract was subject to a Massachusetts’ statute requiring reasonable notice before termination of contracts. The court of appeals found that Primarque had sufficiently shown that an enforceable contract had been implied-in-fact by the parties’ course of conduct, despite the lack of an oral or written agreement and that the Massachusetts statute requiring reasonable notice of termination applied to that contract. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s award of damages to Primarque.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.