Connection lost
Server error
Hennepin Paper Co. v. Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. 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: Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and lost. Plaintiff then sued to reform the same contract. The court held the second suit was barred by claim preclusion, as reformation should have been sought in the first action.
Legal Significance: This case underscores the principle of claim preclusion, mandating that a party must assert all available legal and equitable claims, including reformation, arising from a single transaction in the initial lawsuit.
Hennepin Paper Co. v. Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper 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
Hennepin Paper Co. (plaintiff) entered into a written contract with Fort Wayne Corrugated Paper Co. (defendant) on July 1, 1941, for the sale of .009 corrugating material. The contract stipulated defendant would purchase “all of Customer’s needs…up to 600 tons, more or less.” Plaintiff first sued defendant for breach, alleging a subsequent oral modification increased the purchase commitment to a minimum of 800 tons per month. The trial court in the first action found the written contract unambiguous regarding “needs” and struck allegations of prior negotiations. The jury found against the plaintiff, and judgment was entered. Plaintiff did not appeal. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a second action, seeking reformation of the original written contract to reflect an alleged prior agreement obligating defendant to purchase a fixed 600 tons per month, contending the written contract did not express the parties’ true intent. The defendant moved for summary judgment in the second action, arguing it was barred by the judgment in the first action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a plaintiff precluded from bringing a subsequent action to reform a written contract when the plaintiff could have sought reformation in a prior action for breach of that same contract, which proceeded to judgment?
Yes, the plaintiff is precluded. The district court’s grant of summary judgment 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 cons
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
Is a plaintiff precluded from bringing a subsequent action to reform a written contract when the plaintiff could have sought reformation in a prior action for breach of that same contract, which proceeded to judgment?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong precedent for the application of claim 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 lab
Legal Rule
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically Rule 8(e)(2) and Rule 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 cill
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the plaintiff knew the same facts supporting 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party who loses a suit for breach of contract is