Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Johnson v. Coss
Supreme Court of South Dakota
667 N.W.2d 701, 2003 SD 86 (2003)
A condition precedent is a contract term that doesn't create any rights or duties.
Instead, it refers to a fact or event that must occur before a party is required to perform. An automaker put the brakes on the sale of a dealership, and the parties took a detour to court in Johnson versus Coss.
George Johnson owned an auto dealership and had a franchise agreement with Ford Motor Company.
Lawrence Coss contracted with Johnson to buy the dealership. The contract stated that the sale was subject to Ford's approval, and transfer of the franchise was a condition precedent. If Ford wouldn't transfer the franchise, the whole contract was null and void. Before executing the contract, both Johnson and Coss knew Ford required someone other than Coss to be the on-site manager. Ford required that the manager own a substantial interest in the business.
Coss identified Mark Goodrich as the potential co owner and manager.
After Johnson and Coss signed the sales contract, Ford rejected Coss's proposal of fifty fifty ownership with Goodrich and joint capitalization of one million dollars. Because Ford wanted a majority owner, Coss revised his proposal, giving himself a fifty point one percent ownership interest. Ford also informed Coss that it required initial capitalization of more than one point four million dollars. At Ford's request, Coss supplied financial information.
Although Ford didn't issue a formal denial, costs couldn't meet Ford's requirements.
Coss informed Johnson that because Ford wouldn't transfer the franchise, the contract was void. Johnson sued Coss for breaches of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court awarded Johnson's summary judgment. The court reasoned that Coss's own actions prevented the franchise transfer from occurring. Coss appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/johnson-v-coss
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/johnson-v-coss
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Johnson v. Coss
Supreme Court of South Dakota
667 N.W.2d 701, 2003 SD 86 (2003)
A condition precedent is a contract term that doesn't create any rights or duties.
Instead, it refers to a fact or event that must occur before a party is required to perform. An automaker put the brakes on the sale of a dealership, and the parties took a detour to court in Johnson versus Coss.
George Johnson owned an auto dealership and had a franchise agreement with Ford Motor Company.
Lawrence Coss contracted with Johnson to buy the dealership. The contract stated that the sale was subject to Ford's approval, and transfer of the franchise was a condition precedent. If Ford wouldn't transfer the franchise, the whole contract was null and void. Before executing the contract, both Johnson and Coss knew Ford required someone other than Coss to be the on-site manager. Ford required that the manager own a substantial interest in the business.
Coss identified Mark Goodrich as the potential co owner and manager.
After Johnson and Coss signed the sales contract, Ford rejected Coss's proposal of fifty fifty ownership with Goodrich and joint capitalization of one million dollars. Because Ford wanted a majority owner, Coss revised his proposal, giving himself a fifty point one percent ownership interest. Ford also informed Coss that it required initial capitalization of more than one point four million dollars. At Ford's request, Coss supplied financial information.
Although Ford didn't issue a formal denial, costs couldn't meet Ford's requirements.
Coss informed Johnson that because Ford wouldn't transfer the franchise, the contract was void. Johnson sued Coss for breaches of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court awarded Johnson's summary judgment. The court reasoned that Coss's own actions prevented the franchise transfer from occurring. Coss appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/johnson-v-coss
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/johnson-v-coss
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U86aLpipVaM/mqdefault.jpg "Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I] | Law Case
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Joined by Digital Rights Ireland) [Schrems I]
European Court of Justice
Case C-362/14 (2015)
European Union regulations strictly control the transfer of personal data from data controlling entities in Europe to countries outside the EU referred to as third countries.
The regulations require third countries to ensure an adequate level of data protection.
In data protection commissioner versus Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximilian Schrems, the European Court of Justice considered whether the United States met this standard. In two thousand, the US and the EU negotiated an agreement called the Safe Harbor Principles to authorize private companies to transfer personal customer data from Europe to the states.
The European Commission issued a decision called an adequacy decision certifying that Safe Harbor guaranteed an adequate level of data protection for European citizens.
However, safe harbor allowed the American government unlimited access to personal data for national security and other purposes.
In two thousand thirteen, former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked information revealing that American security agencies engaged in extensive warrantless data collection and had direct access to the data held by major companies like Google and Facebook.
Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems, had a Facebook account. European Facebook users had to contract with Facebook Ireland, a Facebook subsidiary.
Facebook Ireland sent users personal data to Facebook in the US. Following the Snowden league, Shremes filed a complaint with Irelands data protection commissioner, that countrys data supervisory authority. Schrems asked the authority to prohibit Facebook Ireland from transferring his data to the US because US law didnt adequately protect personal data.
The authority rejected Schrems complaint because of safe harbor.
Schrems appealed to Irelands high court, which requested an opinion on the safe harbor decisions validity from the European Court of Justice.
The European Court invalidated the decision and referred the case back to the authority.
Thereafter, the US and EU negotiated a new agreement called Privacy Shield. The European Commission issued an adequacy decision approving Privacy Shield. Privacy Shield was similar to Safe Harbor, but created an ombudsperson to investigate data privacy complaints from European citizens.
Again, however, Privacy Shield allowed the federal government unlimited access to personal data for national security reasons.
Schrems refiled his complaint. The authority referred the case to Irelands high court, which again referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
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/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/schrems-v-data-protection-commissioner-joined-by-digital-rights-ireland-schrems-i
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries")
