Hornell Brewing Co. v. Spry

Spry (defendant) obtained an oral exclusive Canadian distribution agreement for Arizona Tea from Hornell Brewing (plaintiff) and invested in setting up the business, but repeatedly fell behind on payments, including a returned $31,000 check and nearly $100,000 owed; after Spry paid roughly $80,000 in response to a demand letter and ordered a large new shipment, Hornell learned Spry's supposed Canadian warehouse was empty with no staff or trucks. Hornell sent a second letter conditioning continued credit on Spry confirming a previously claimed $1.5 million line of credit, Spry never responded, and Hornell sought a declaratory judgment that it had properly terminated the distribution agreement.