Connection lost
Server error
H. RUSSELL TAYLOR'S FIRE v. COCA COLA BOTTLING 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 supplier sued for the value of unreturned gas cylinders, waiving the tort of conversion and suing in quasi-contract. The court held that this fictional sale was a “contract for sale” under the UCC, making the suit timely under the UCC’s four-year statute of limitations.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a quasi-contract (contract implied-in-law) arising from a waived tort of conversion qualifies as a “contract for sale” under the UCC, making it subject to the UCC’s four-year statute of limitations rather than a shorter tort or general contract limitations period.
H. RUSSELL TAYLOR'S FIRE v. COCA COLA BOTTLING 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) had an oral agreement to supply defendant Coca Cola Bottling Corp. (Coca Cola) with carbon dioxide cylinders. The agreement stipulated a service charge per refill in lieu of any demurrage or rental fees. The business relationship terminated on September 23, 1971. Following termination, Taylor demanded the return of its cylinders, but Coca Cola failed to return 246 of them. On June 4, 1975—more than three years but less than four years after the demand—Taylor filed suit. Taylor’s complaint included a cause of action for indebitatus assumpsit, a form of quasi-contract. Under this theory, Taylor elected to waive the tort of conversion and treat Coca Cola’s failure to return the cylinders as a fictional purchase and sale. Coca Cola argued the claim was for conversion and thus barred by the three-year statute of limitations for torts against property. The trial court found for Taylor, applying the four-year statute of limitations for sales contracts under California’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2725.
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-contract action (indebitatus assumpsit) arising from a waived tort of conversion?
Yes. The court affirmed the judgment for Taylor. By waiving the tort 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 occae
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-contract action (indebitatus assumpsit) arising from a waived tort of conversion?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that the UCC's statute of limitations for sales contracts 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
Legal Rule
An action in indebitatus assumpsit, which treats a tortious conversion of goods 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 ali
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on whether a quasi-contract, or contract implied-in-law, could 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. D
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The four-year statute of limitations for sales contracts (UCC § 2725)
