Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Great American Music MacHine, Inc. v. Mid-South Record Pressing Co. Case Brief

District Court, M.D. Tennessee1975Docket #1012220
393 F. Supp. 877 17 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 381 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14093 Contracts Sales (UCC Article 2) 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: A record company sued a manufacturer for delivering defective albums. The court found a breach of warranty but rejected claims for lost profits from the speculative venture, instead awarding damages limited to the reasonable costs of rehabilitating the product’s launch after the breach.

Legal Significance: Establishes that for a new, speculative business venture, consequential damages for lost profits are unavailable if not proven with reasonable certainty. It provides an alternative damage measure under UCC § 2-714: expenses reasonably incurred to rehabilitate the product after the seller’s breach.

Great American Music MacHine, Inc. v. Mid-South Record Pressing 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

Plaintiff Great American Music Machine, Inc. (GrAMM), a new corporation formed to promote an unknown artist, contracted with defendant Mid-South Record Pressing Co. to press 40,000 high-quality record albums. The defendant was aware of GrAMM’s promotional plan, which included a mass mailing and a potential public stock offering. The initial pressing of records was defective, being warped, pitted, and commercially unacceptable. Before GrAMM could halt distribution, thousands of defective albums were shipped to potential customers and distributors. The defendant subsequently re-pressed the order, and this second batch was of acceptable quality. GrAMM accepted the second pressing but refused to pay the contract price, suing for breach of warranty. GrAMM sought damages for its entire investment and for a failed $500,000 stock underwriting, which it alleged was caused by the defective initial pressing. Defendant counterclaimed for the contract price. Evidence at trial, including expert testimony, suggested the album had little to no market potential, regardless of pressing quality.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: When a seller breaches a warranty by delivering defective goods to a new and speculative business venture, what is the proper measure of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code?

The defendant breached express and implied warranties, but the plaintiff is not 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 f

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

When a seller breaches a warranty by delivering defective goods to a new and speculative business venture, what is the proper measure of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code?

Conclusion

This case provides a key precedent for calculating damages under the UCC 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 aliq

Legal Rule

Under UCC § 2-714 and § 2-715, a buyer cannot recover speculative 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 cupid

Legal Analysis

The court first determined that the defendant breached its express promise of 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 dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occa

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A new business suing for breach of contract cannot recover its
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 si

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?

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+