Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A.
117 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract to negotiate an agreement in good faith is an enforceable contract. However, damages for the breach of a contract to negotiate are limited to the injured party's reliance damages, not the lost profits (expectation damages) they would have received had the underlying agreement been finalized.
Facts:
- Kevin A. Copeland expressed interest in acquiring an ice cream manufacturing plant that Baskin Robbins U.S.A. intended to close.
- Copeland made it clear that any purchase of the plant was contingent on Baskin Robbins agreeing to a 'co-packing' arrangement to purchase ice cream from him after the sale, which he considered a critical 'deal-breaker'.
- After months of negotiations, Baskin Robbins sent Copeland a letter in May 1999 detailing terms for the sale of the plant and a three-year co-packing agreement, which was 'subject to a separate co-packing agreement and negotiated pricing'.
- Copeland accepted the terms by signing the letter and returning it with a $3,000 non-refundable check.
- The parties continued to negotiate essential terms of the co-packing agreement, including price, flavors, quality control, and liability for spoilage, but did not reach a final agreement.
- In July 1999, Baskin Robbins sent a letter to Copeland unilaterally terminating negotiations, stating that the proposed arrangement was 'out of alignment' with a new corporate strategy, and returned his $3,000 deposit.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin A. Copeland sued Baskin Robbins U.S.A. in a California trial court for breach of contract.
- Baskin Robbins moved for summary judgment, arguing the May 1999 letter was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' because essential terms were missing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Baskin Robbins.
- Copeland (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's refusal to continue negotiating the final terms of a deal constitute a breach of an enforceable contract when the parties have signed a preliminary letter of intent agreeing to negotiate?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Acting P. J.
Yes, a refusal to continue negotiating can constitute a breach of an enforceable contract to negotiate in good faith. A contract to negotiate is distinguishable from an unenforceable 'agreement to agree' and can be formed and breached like any other contract. The breach occurs not from a failure to reach a final agreement, but from a party's failure to negotiate or to negotiate in good faith. The court reasoned that public policy supports enforcing such contracts to protect the time and money parties invest in complex, modern negotiations. However, the remedy for such a breach is limited to reliance damages—the out-of-pocket costs incurred by the injured party in reliance on the promise to negotiate. Expectation damages, such as lost profits from the prospective final contract, are not recoverable because it is impossible to know what the ultimate terms would have been or if an agreement would have ever been reached. Because Copeland sought only expectation damages and expressly disavowed reliance damages, his claim fails, and summary judgment for Baskin Robbins is appropriate.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in California by formally recognizing a 'contract to negotiate' as an enforceable legal agreement, distinguishing it from the traditionally unenforceable 'agreement to agree.' This provides a cause of action for parties harmed when a negotiating partner withdraws in bad faith from discussions after committing to them. However, the decision's impact is tempered by its strict limitation on damages to reliance costs, which makes such lawsuits less financially viable for plaintiffs whose primary losses are lost profits or missed opportunities. This holding balances the goals of promoting fair dealing in complex negotiations with the judicial system's reluctance to speculate about the terms of a contract that was never actually formed.
Unlock the full brief for Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A.