The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P entered into a production contract with D for the production of Haagen-Dazs ice cream. There was an explosion at D's south ice cream manufacturing facility. On August 8, 2002, P filed its two-count petition alleging D's breach of contract and negligence claims. D raised the 'force-majeure' clause of the production contract as an affirmative defense. The production contract contained a force-majeure clause. The language of the clause states: Neither party will be liable for delays or suspension of performance (other than the obligation to pay for services and goods sold and delivered) caused by acts of God or governmental authority, strikes, accidents, explosions, floods, fires or the total loss of manufacturing facilities or any other cause that is beyond the reasonable control of that party ('Force Majeure') so long as that party has used its best efforts to perform despite such Force Majeure. On May 29, 2003, D filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the force-majeure clause excused D's inability to perform. The court ordered discovery of extrinsic evidence on the issue. D filed a second motion for summary judgment. The court found the force-majeure clause relieved D from performing under the production contract. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.