Connection lost
Server error
H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. Case Brief
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
tl;dr: A company kept another’s gas cylinders after their business relationship ended. The owner waived the tort of conversion and sued for their value as a fictional sale. The court held this “implied-in-law” sale was a “contract for sale” under the UCC, making the suit timely.
Legal Significance: Establishes that the UCC’s four-year statute of limitations for contracts for sale (UCC § 2-725) applies to quasi-contracts (contracts implied-in-law), such as when a plaintiff waives a tort like conversion and sues in assumpsit for the value of the goods.
H. Russell Taylor's Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. 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 H. Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service, Inc. (Taylor) supplied carbon dioxide cylinders to Defendant Coca Cola Bottling Corp. (Coca Cola) under an oral agreement. The agreement stipulated a service charge per refill in lieu of any demurrage or rental fees for the cylinders. The parties terminated their business relationship on September 23, 1971. Following the termination, Taylor demanded the return of its outstanding cylinders, but Coca Cola failed to return 246 of them. On June 4, 1975, more than three years after the demand, Taylor filed suit. Taylor’s primary cause of action was indebitatus assumpsit, wherein it elected to waive the tort of conversion and treat Coca Cola’s wrongful retention of the cylinders as a fictional purchase and sale. Coca Cola moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for conversion (Code of Civil Procedure § 338(3)). The trial court, however, found for Taylor, determining that the action was based on an implied-in-law contract of sale and was therefore timely under the four-year statute of limitations provided in California’s Uniform Commercial Code § 2725. Coca Cola appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the four-year statute of limitations for an action for breach of a “contract for sale” under California’s Uniform Commercial Code § 2725 apply to a quasi-contractual action in indebitatus assumpsit arising from a waiver of the tort of conversion?
Yes. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the four-year 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 volupta
IRAC Legal Analysis
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
Does the four-year statute of limitations for an action for breach of a “contract for sale” under California’s Uniform Commercial Code § 2725 apply to a quasi-contractual action in indebitatus assumpsit arising from a waiver of the tort of conversion?
Conclusion
This case expands the scope of UCC Article 2 by 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 ni
Legal Rule
An action in indebitatus assumpsit, based on a waiver of tort and 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 conseq
Legal Analysis
The court first established that the nature of the right sued upon, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- When a plaintiff waives the tort of conversion and sues in