Teitelbaum v. Hallmark Cards Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Hallmark’s 60-day notice before terminating its exclusive relationship with its distributor was reasonable, as a matter of law, where the evidence was undisputed that the card shop obtained another supplier (American Greeting Card Company
• holding that Hallmark’s 60-day notice before terminating its exclusive relationship with its distributor was reasonable, as a matter of law, where the evidence was undisputed that the card shop obtained another supplier (American Greeting Card Company
• noting that it is “the amount of harm that can be proved by the party who has incurred the loss of a supplier”
• applying G. L. c. 106, § 2-309[3], to an at-will contract for the periodic supply of inventory to the plaintiffs’ greeting card store
• no ch. 93A violation based on a franchisor’s decision to deal with a different distributor
• court held notice reasonable as a matter of law where retailer obtained another full line of inventory and thus incurred no harm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).