Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co.
Decision Date | 27 February 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 14276.,14276. |
Citation | 202 F.2d 372 |
Parties | ARD DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. v. DR. PEPPER CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
M. B. Montgomery, Jackson, Miss., Hugh v. Wall, Brookhaven, Miss., Barnett, Jones & Montgomery, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
C. B. Snow, Jackson, Miss., Snowden M. Leftwich, Dallas, Tex., Butler, Snow & O'Mara, Jackson, Miss., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and STRUM and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment rendered upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, appellee. For convenience, the appellant, plaintiff, will be hereafter referred to as Ard and the appellee, defendant, as Dr. Pepper.
The complaint seeks the recovery of damages in the amount of $150,000.00 for the alleged wrongful, willful, and malicious breach of a bottler's license agreement entered into between Ard and Dr. Pepper in 1938. The answer admits the cancellation by Dr. Pepper of the license agreement on July 27, 1950, and alleges that Dr. Pepper in good faith determined that Ard had not complied with the terms and provisions of the license agreement, and that under the provisions of the agreement Dr. Pepper's determination as to these matters authorized it to cancel the agreement and was final and conclusive.
The district court in the course of its instructions to the jury directing a verdict for the defendant, Dr. Pepper, stated that the cases of Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; Standard Construction Co. v. Brantley Granite Co., 90 Miss. 16, 43 So. 300; Shepherd v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 180; and Lanier v. New York Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 88 F.2d 196, were controlling and made it imperative that the directed verdict be given. The view of the district court is fairly summarized in the concluding paragraph of its charge to the jury:
By the bottler's license agreement entered into between Dr. Pepper and Ard on the 20th day of July, 1938, Dr. Pepper granted to Ard the exclusive license to bottle in a designated territory consisting of a number of counties in Mississippi a soft drink known as "Dr. Pepper", provided for the price and terms at which Dr. Pepper was to sell syrup to Ard, and agreed that "such exclusive license shall continue so long as Dr. Pepper Company, or its successors or assigns, continue the manufacture of Dr. Pepper syrup, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter set out."
Among Ard's agreements were the following (emphasis supplied):
Stated to be "For The Further Mutual Protection And Benefit of the parties" it was agreed in part as follows (emphasis supplied):
The agreement was supplemented by an instrument dated April 29, 1940, in matters not here material.
The letter of cancellation dated July 27, 1950, fairly sets out the grounds upon which Dr. Pepper claimed the right to cancel and terminate the license agreement:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Gulf Oil/Cities Service Tender Offer Lit.
...in clauses requiring personal satisfaction. See Tymshare, 727 F.2d at 1152-53, and cases cited therein; Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co., 202 F.2d 372, 377 (5th Cir.1953) (termination clause predicated on "satisfaction" of one party enforced "`unless there is an absence of good......
-
Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Commc'ns, LLC
...by which to measure Discovery's satisfaction with Sky Angel's distribution methodology.Moreover, in Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co., 202 F.2d 372, 376 (5th Cir.1953), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit clarified that once a party has alleged that a party ......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co.(Kentucky)
...the wording of the contract. Jacksonville Terminal Co. v. Railway Express Agency, 5 Cir., 296 F.2d 256; Ard-Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co. et al, 5 Cir., 202 F.2d 372; Roberts et al. v. Corum et al, 236 Miss. 809, 112 So.2d A contract involving a trademark is construed just as an......
- Screven County v. Brier Creek Hunting & Fishing Club