Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co. Case Brief

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1990Docket #359262
584 A.2d 915 526 Pa. 110 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 11 1990 Pa. LEXIS 221 Contracts Commercial Law Remedies

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Franchisees sued their supplier for providing defective gasoline that drove away customers. The court expanded recoverable damages under the UCC for breach of warranty, allowing claims for lost profits on both the defective product and related items, and overturned precedent to permit claims for future lost profits (goodwill).

Legal Significance: This case modernized Pennsylvania’s contract law by overruling the per se ban on recovering “goodwill” damages for breach of warranty. It established a new, three-part framework for lost profits as consequential damages under the UCC, recognizing primary, secondary, and prospective (goodwill) profit loss.

AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The plaintiffs, a class of over 150 AM/PM franchisees, had franchise agreements with Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) that required them to purchase and sell only ARCO petroleum products. From 1982 to 1985, ARCO supplied its franchisees with a new unleaded gasoline blended with oxinol. The franchisees alleged that this oxinol blend was defective, causing poor engine performance and damage to customers’ vehicles. They claimed ARCO breached express and implied warranties regarding the gasoline’s quality and suitability. As public awareness of the gasoline’s problems grew, the franchisees experienced a significant decline in gasoline sales and, consequently, a drop in sales of other items in their associated convenience stores. The franchisees sued ARCO to recover these lost profits as consequential damages for breach of warranty. Because their franchise agreement prevented them from purchasing gasoline from other suppliers, they were unable to “cover” under the UCC to mitigate their losses.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, may a buyer who resells goods recover consequential damages for lost profits, including profits on the nonconforming goods (primary profits), profits on other items (secondary profits), and future profits lost due to reputational harm (goodwill)?

Yes. The court reversed the dismissal of the warranty claims, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, may a buyer who resells goods recover consequential damages for lost profits, including profits on the nonconforming goods (primary profits), profits on other items (secondary profits), and future profits lost due to reputational harm (goodwill)?

Conclusion

This landmark decision significantly expanded the scope of recoverable consequential damages for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no

Legal Rule

For a breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est l

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on modernizing the interpretation of consequential damages under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Establishes three types of recoverable lost profits for breach of warranty:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More