Shaw

Shaw v. E'OLA International

Good Law
73 F. App'x 276
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 2003No. 02-35340; D.C. No. CV-00-00122-A-HRHCalifornia264 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Shaw and E’OLA International entered into an Agreement for Shaw to distribute E’OLA products. E’OLA terminated Shaw’s distributorship after concluding that Shaw had violated the contract on several grounds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The Agreement between Shaw and E’OLA stated that Shaw “acknowledges that he[ ] has received the E‘OLA Policies and Procedures and understands that they *277 may be amended and updated by E’OLA from time to time. Distributor agrees to abide by the then current Policies and Procedures.... ” The Agreement further stated that “[t]he Agreement and the Policies and Procedures contain the entire understanding of the parties.” Finally, the Agreement provided that “E’OLA may terminate Distributor at any time if Distributor breaches this Agreement.”

Shaw does not dispute that the Agreement constitutes a contract, but instead argues that E’OLA’s promulgation of a no-mall-cart policy breached the Agreement. Because the change in policy was not a material alteration to the contract, Shaw was bound by the amendment and was required to remove his mall cart by June 30, 1998. His continued use of the mall cart…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.