Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
ROSENSTEIN v. IDA PRODUCTS COMPANY
August 30, 1973
FRED ROSENSTEIN D/B/A ADVANCE MERCHANDISERS, PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT,
IDA PRODUCTS COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes on the defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to the complaint and counterclaim.
This is a diversity of citizenship action seeking damages
for the breach of a contract by the defendant. The plaintiff
alleges that damages exceed $10,000 exclusive of interest and
The plaintiff is Fred Rosenstein, d/b/a Advance
Merchandisers, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, who transacts
business as a distributor of building products within the City
of Chicago, Illinois. The defendant is IDA Products Company
("IDA"), a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the
laws of the State of Michigan, which is in the business of
manufacturing, distributing and selling windows and doors to
the construction industry in the City of Detroit, Michigan.
The plaintiff alleges the following facts in the complaint:
1. On or about October 10, 1972, the plaintiff
and defendant did enter into an oral
agreement whereby the defendant did agree to
terminate its existing distributorship within
the State of Illinois and Chicago area, to
appoint the plaintiff, or a corporation to be
organized by him, as a sole distributory
within the State of Illinois and adjoining
states surrounding the Chicago metropolitan
area and to pay to the plaintiff its usual
and ordinary commission for all sales made by
plaintiff of defendant's product. The
plaintiff, in consideration of the above, did
then agree to act as defendant's distributor,
to use reasonable efforts to sell defendant's
product line, and to obtain larger warehouse
facilities within Cook County, Illinois to
service customers of defendant's product
2. Both parties partially performed certain
acts. The plaintiff did obtain, with the
approval of defendant, adequate warehouse
facilities, and the defendant did notify its
then existing distributor that such
distributorship would be terminated.
3. The defendant did breach the said agreement
by repudiating same on or about February 2,
1973 at which time defendant advised
plaintiff that it did not intend to abide by
its agreement to appoint plaintiff as its
4. By reason of the said breach of contract by
the defendant, plaintiff has suffered damages
in the amount of $180,000 which sum
represents the reasonable profits plaintiff
could have made during a reasonable period of
time when such distributorship would have
remained in effect.
The defendant IDA in response to the instant complaint
alleges the following facts in its amended counterclaim:
1. There is a diversity of citizenship between
2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000
exclusive of interest and costs.
3. Commencing in October, 1972 to and including
February, 1973 defendant, counter-plaintiff
sold and delivered to plaintiff,
counter-defendant certain goods and
merchandise which goods and merchandise were
accepted by plaintiff counter-defendant.
4. There is due and owing to the defendant
counter-plaintiff for the goods sold and
delivered the sum of $42,561.11 plus interest
thereupon for ...
Buy This Entire Record For