Cox v. SNAP, Inc. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Описание: Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Cox v. SNAP, Inc. | 859 F.3d 304 (2017)

In contracts, a party’s performance can be subject to a condition precedent, meaning performance is only required upon the occurrence of a specified future event. But if one party has control over whether the event occurs, there’s a risk the party will manipulate the situation to avoid its contractual obligations. In Cox versus SNAP, Incorporated, we explore how the prevention doctrine ameliorates the effect of such manipulation.

SNAP contracted with Curtis Cox for Cox and his company to provide marketing services. The contract stated that, on the day of the contract’s execution, SNAP, quote, “will issue,” unquote, stock options to Cox, giving him the right to purchase shares in SNAP at a future date. The contract also stated that Cox had a put option, meaning he could require SNAP to repurchase his options after a specified date for a price determined using a preestablished formula.

Years later, after that specified date, Cox twice tried to exercise his put option, demanding that SNAP repurchase his stock options. But SNAP refused, prompting Cox to file a state-court breach-of-contract action that was later removed to federal court. Relying on the contract’s will issue language, SNAP argued that the contract didn’t confer options to Cox, but merely promised that SNAP would issue options to him and made such issuance a condition of SNAPs obligation to repurchase. Consequently, because SNAP didn’t separately issue any options, the condition failed, and SNAP wasn’t obligated to repurchase. And any claim for breach of contract based on SNAP’s failure to issue the options was barred by the statute of limitations. But Cox argued that the contract itself issued the options, and SNAP therefore breached the contract by refusing to repurchase them.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cox, and SNAP appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cox-v-s...

The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/cox-v-s...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries