Miscellaneous

With the caption of the case reading “The Pillsbury Company, Inc. v. Wells Dairy, Inc.“, you would expect the Iowa Supreme Court’s newest opinion to be fairly sweet. It turns out it’s a contracts case and an appeal of a grant of summary judgment, at that.

Pillsbury (dough-boy giggle) entered into a contract with Wells (has anyone ever actually seen a blue bunny?) whereby Wells (I never realized they make Bomb Pops) would make Haagen-Dazs (I’m not sure I’ve ever tried it) ice cream. Wells (their Light 85 (now just “Light”) yogurt is pretty good) suffered an explosion at one of its plants and production was interrupted. Pillsbury (I haven’t tried the toaster strudel, but it looks good) later assigned its interest in Haagen-Dasz (interesting flavors, though) to a new joint venture with Nestle’s (mmm…chocolate). Pillsbury (they make Totino’s, too?) later sued Wells (I think Weight Watchers ice cream treats is an oxymoron) over its lost profits related to the explosion.

The fight is first about whether Pillsbury (I’m a big fan of biscuits) is the real party in interest. The District Court said it’s not, because of the assignment. The Supreme Court says the assignment is ambiguous as to whether the claim against Wells (ooo…chocolate malt cups) was actually assigned, so there should be no summary judgment on that basis.

Wells’ (BIG Mississippi Mud Ice Cream Sandwich doesn’t sound that appetizing) second argument is that the force majeure clause in the contract between Wells (hmmm…Jolly Rancher Ice Pop) and Pillsbury (crescent rolls!) lets Wells (Cool Tubes Orange Sherbet will cool you off) off the hook. They’re reading it in such a way that for most force majeure incidents, it doesn’t matter whether Wells (Bunny Tracks is pretty good) could have reasonably prevented the explosion, the clause says they don’t have any liability. The Supreme Court tells Wells (I’m running out of interesting products) that you actually have to read the whole clause and read it within the context of the rest of the contract and its execution. Using Minnesota law (as pleaded by the parties) the Court decides that Wells’ (they have a variety of ice cream bars) reading is incorrect and that Pillsbury (maybe I should try to enter the bake-off), or whomever is the real party in interest, should be allowed to try to prove that Wells (even king size cones) could have reasonably prevented the explosion.

FOOD FIGHT!