Hudson & Broad, Inc. (H&B) designed and manufactured display fixtures for stores. H&B alleged that J.C....

Transcribed Image Text:

Hudson & Broad, Inc. (H&B) designed and manufactured display fixtures for stores. H&B alleged that J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. (JCP) hired it to create a light fixture design based on JCP's "Fair and Square" advertising campaign. H&B submitted two designs for the "Squares" fixtures to JCP on January 4, 2012, hoping to win a nationwide contract to manufacture the Squares for JCP stores. Each design consisted of four rectangles forming the border; each rectangle was made from a matte acrylic and lit by an LED whose color could change via remote control. H&B performed services for JCP, such as attending meetings to assess the number and distribution of Squares for stores and providing and installing several finished Squares in JCP's Manhattan Mall location, in the corporate headquarters, and at a JCP beauty salon. The parties did not discuss price terms or a formal contract until JCP's Vice President for Visual Marketing requested a quote to present to JCP's Chief Operating Officer. H&B's representatives attended a meeting with JCP's Procurement Department on February 15, 2012, where production details and deadlines were discussed. H&B learned that other vendors were looking for materials for a square product for JCP. H&B's President contacted Francois, who explained that the JCP Capital Authorization Committee must still review H&B's quote and entertain other bids, and that H&B's quote had not yet been approved. JCP's Visual Graphics Director later informed H&B that another firm had submitted a bid "for a better product at half price!" JCP accepted the other firm's bid. H&B alleged that the accepted product differs from its Squares only by "the use of glossy acrylic in place of the custom-designed matte acrylic for the exterior." H&B did not receive any design fees or orders for the Squares. It had turned down offers for a design fee, and sued JCP for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. (In some states unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are different types of quasi contract claims.) 1. Assume that H&B's case has been filed in your court. How will you decide? 2. What could H&B have done differently to protect its interest in this process? 3. Would it have been effective? Why or why not? Hudson & Broad, Inc. (H&B) designed and manufactured display fixtures for stores. H&B alleged that J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. (JCP) hired it to create a light fixture design based on JCP's "Fair and Square" advertising campaign. H&B submitted two designs for the "Squares" fixtures to JCP on January 4, 2012, hoping to win a nationwide contract to manufacture the Squares for JCP stores. Each design consisted of four rectangles forming the border; each rectangle was made from a matte acrylic and lit by an LED whose color could change via remote control. H&B performed services for JCP, such as attending meetings to assess the number and distribution of Squares for stores and providing and installing several finished Squares in JCP's Manhattan Mall location, in the corporate headquarters, and at a JCP beauty salon. The parties did not discuss price terms or a formal contract until JCP's Vice President for Visual Marketing requested a quote to present to JCP's Chief Operating Officer. H&B's representatives attended a meeting with JCP's Procurement Department on February 15, 2012, where production details and deadlines were discussed. H&B learned that other vendors were looking for materials for a square product for JCP. H&B's President contacted Francois, who explained that the JCP Capital Authorization Committee must still review H&B's quote and entertain other bids, and that H&B's quote had not yet been approved. JCP's Visual Graphics Director later informed H&B that another firm had submitted a bid "for a better product at half price!" JCP accepted the other firm's bid. H&B alleged that the accepted product differs from its Squares only by "the use of glossy acrylic in place of the custom-designed matte acrylic for the exterior." H&B did not receive any design fees or orders for the Squares. It had turned down offers for a design fee, and sued JCP for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. (In some states unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are different types of quasi contract claims.) 1. Assume that H&B's case has been filed in your court. How will you decide? 2. What could H&B have done differently to protect its interest in this process? 3. Would it have been effective? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Decision In this case if I were the judge presiding over the matter I would consider the following factors to make a decision Existence of a Contrac... View the full answer