Klein v. Pepsico 1988
Remedies for Breach > Specific Relief Contracts – pg 588 – 09-01-2009
Parties: Π – Eugene V Klein – Prospective buyer for jet ∆ - PepsiCo – Jet owner Procedural History: - District decided for π and awarded specific damages Facts: - π contracted with UJS to find a G-II plane to purchase - Found PepsiCo as a partner and initiated negotiations to purchase (at $4.6 mil) in order to resell to Klein (at $4.75 mil) - Telex messages confirmed a deal had been struck, although they specified the deal wouldn’t be complete w/o written contract - Conditions for repairs not completed but agreed upon - PepsiCo chairmen rides on plane and decides to take it off the market - Π sues for breach of contract Legal Issue: Is specific performance the appropriate remedy for a breach of contract on a private jet? Holding: No. Private jet transactions do not merit specific performance if a contract is breached. Reasoning: - Several pieces of evidence cited showing telex communications demonstrated a contract was formed o Dispute is over fact not judicial error o Outstanding conditions did not show the contract Ø completed b/c telex confirms agreement o Writing the contract memorializes it rather than becoming a necessary condition of the contract - Virginia Code allows specific performance when goods are unique or in other proper circumstances o Court finds G-II as not unique enough to merit Specific evidence shows π was able to find another o Increase in price to find a new G-II Ø sufficient Disposition: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part Dissent/Concurrence: N/A
rence: N/A