Uploaded August 2026 | 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
Sacramento E.D.M. Inc. v. Hynes Aviation Industries | 2017 WL 1383289 (2017)
A struggling company thought it had found a lifeline when an experienced business consultant proposed an arrangement to increase its cash flow and stave off bankruptcy, but the terms of the contract were much worse than the company expected.
Were the terms so bad that the contract should be voided as unconscionable? That was the issue before the court in Sacramento EDM versus Heinz Aviation Industries.
Sacramento EDM, or SAC EDM for short, was a metal machining company.
Dan Folk, the company's president and founder, met Michael Hynes, the president and owner of Hynes Aviation Industries, or HAI. Facing financial distress, SAC EDM retained Hynes as a business consultant. Hines and Folk formed Oklahoma EDM, or OKEDM, a company that existed to loan money to SAC EDM. Through the joint venture, Hynes purchased SAC EDM's equipment and leased it back to the company. This deal generated cash flow for SAC EDM and provided tax benefit for both parties. However, SAC EDM continued to struggle.
The relationship between the parties soured, and SAC EDM sued Hynes and HAI.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/sacramento-e-d-m-inc-v-hynes-aviation-industries
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/sacramento-e-d-m-inc-v-hynes-aviation-industries
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
Sacramento E.D.M. Inc. v. Hynes Aviation Industries | 2017 WL 1383289 (2017)
A struggling company thought it had found a lifeline when an experienced business consultant proposed an arrangement to increase its cash flow and stave off bankruptcy, but the terms of the contract were much worse than the company expected.
Were the terms so bad that the contract should be voided as unconscionable? That was the issue before the court in Sacramento EDM versus Heinz Aviation Industries.
Sacramento EDM, or SAC EDM for short, was a metal machining company.
Dan Folk, the company's president and founder, met Michael Hynes, the president and owner of Hynes Aviation Industries, or HAI. Facing financial distress, SAC EDM retained Hynes as a business consultant. Hines and Folk formed Oklahoma EDM, or OKEDM, a company that existed to loan money to SAC EDM. Through the joint venture, Hynes purchased SAC EDM's equipment and leased it back to the company. This deal generated cash flow for SAC EDM and provided tax benefit for both parties. However, SAC EDM continued to struggle.
The relationship between the parties soured, and SAC EDM sued Hynes and HAI.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/sacramento-e-d-m-inc-v-hynes-aviation-industries
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/sacramento-e-d-m-inc-v-hynes-aviation-industries
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









![Charles v. Barzey Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
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
Charles v. Barzey
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
[2002] UKPC 68 (2002)
Property law recognizes multiple types of interests in real property. But in Charles versus Barzey, we explore whether there are limits to the types of property interests that courts will recognize.
Iris Charles owned two properties on Cork Street in Rousseau, Dominica.
When Iris wrote her will, she was living in the property known as number nine. The other property known as number eighteen included a residence and an addition with a garage and storeroom.
For many years, Iriss nephew, John Charles, used the addition as a storage facility for his pharmaceutical business located next door.
Iris will stated that upon her death, number nine was to pass to John. Number eighteen was devised to Johns sister, Yvette Barzey, and the garage and storeroom were given to John to use as long as he wished. After Iriss death, Barzey filed a judicial action in Dominica seeking a declaration that the will gave her unencumbered title to number eighteen. She argued that John had no legal interest in the property because any interest in the garage and storeroom would be clearly inconsistent with Iris device to Barzey.
The trial court held that Barzey took number eighteen in fee simple subject to John having a life estate in the garage and storeroom.
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/charles-v-barzey
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/charles-v-barzey
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 Charles v. Barzey Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Otq3WmkbgiA/mqdefault.jpg)
