Connection lost
Server error
Remapp Intern. Corp. v. Comfort Keyboard Co., Inc. 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 seller sued a buyer for breaching oral contracts for custom electronic components. The buyer denied the contracts existed and invoked the Statute of Frauds. The court affirmed that enforceable contracts existed under UCC exceptions for specially manufactured goods and merchant confirmation.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the application of key UCC Statute of Frauds exceptions—specially manufactured goods (§ 2-201(3)(a)) and the merchant’s confirmation rule (§ 2-201(2)). It also shows how parties’ conduct can establish contract formation (§ 2-204) despite deviations from their prior course of dealing.
Remapp Intern. Corp. v. Comfort Keyboard Co., Inc. 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 Remapp International Corp. (seller) and Defendant Comfort Keyboard Co. (buyer) had a multi-year business relationship. Their practice evolved from written purchase orders to verbal orders placed by Comfort’s president, Afifi. The established payment term was 50% prepayment upon receipt of a pro forma invoice. In 2006, Afifi verbally ordered 2,000 USB boards, 2,000 HUB boards, and 4,100 microprocessors. Remapp sent pro forma invoices for the boards and a standard invoice for the microprocessors. In a departure from their established course of dealing, Comfort did not make the 50% prepayment. Despite this, Comfort’s subsequent conduct indicated a contract existed; Afifi sent emails confirming design specifications (e.g., “GREAT…. PLEASE HAVE THEM DO THAT …”) and did not object when Remapp’s emails indicated production was underway. Remapp’s president testified the boards were custom-designed for Comfort and unsuitable for sale to others, while the microprocessors were standard components. After Remapp had begun manufacturing, Comfort repudiated the agreements. Remapp sued for breach of contract. Comfort denied authorizing the orders, arguing the pro forma invoices were unaccepted offers and that any alleged oral agreements were barred by the Statute of Frauds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did enforceable oral contracts for the sale of goods exist, despite the lack of a signed writing, where the goods were either specially manufactured for the buyer or where a merchant failed to object to a written confirmation within ten days?
Yes. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that enforceable oral 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
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
Did enforceable oral contracts for the sale of goods exist, despite the lack of a signed writing, where the goods were either specially manufactured for the buyer or where a merchant failed to object to a written confirmation within ten days?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear circuit-level application of the UCC's specially manufactured 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. Du
Legal Rule
Under the UCC as adopted in Wisconsin, a contract for the sale 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
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit, reviewing for clear error, affirmed the magistrate judge's findings. 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.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under UCC § 2-204, an oral contract can be formed by