01-3549 Beer Capitol Distributing, Inc. v. Guinness Bass Import Company

Listen to this article

If the court finds that reasonable people in the position of the plaintiff could reach only one conclusion – that the defendant’s statement was not a commitment but was instead “a mere prediction” or, in this case, an inquiry as to whether Beer Capitol could meet one of many conditions – summary judgment is appropriate. Id. (internal citations omitted). Beer Capitol’s best argument is that a reasonable person in Madrigrano’s shoes – that is, a reasonable person whose company had done a good job as a local distributor for eight years, and who had been told by GBIC’s regional manager that it was the leading candidate and that he would recommend it to the corporate executives in charge of the final decision – could find that Gay’s question at the April 2000 meeting was a commitment to select Beer Capitol as the consolidated regional distributor. We find that, even from that vantage point, no reasonable person could construe as a promise Gay’s inquiry regarding the ability or willingness to meet one of the conditions for appointment.

“Beer Capitol contends that it conferred a benefit on GBIC by investing in the best personnel and computer system, as well as by its promotion and advertising of the GBIC brand name. As the district court noted, however, unjust enrichment is an obligation enforced in the absence of any agreement. Puttkammer v. Minth, 266 N.W.2d 361 (Wis. 1978). It is undisputed that Beer Capitol performed well as the Waukesha and Milwaukee counties distributor for eight years; it is also undisputed that it was compensated for that role during the course of the distributorship. If the enriched party has paid for the value of the benefit received, no inequity results from retaining that benefit. Id.; see also Murray v. Abt Assoc., 18 F.3d 1376 (7th Cir. 1994) (Under Illinois law, similar to that of Wisconsin, an employee could not recover from its employer for unjust enrichment where a contract governed the parties’ relationship.). The fact that the other terminated distributors received compensation and Beer Capitol did not is of no help to the company; Beer Capitol made a tactical decision to sue rather than to accept the payment. That choice did not unjustly benefit GBIC.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Flaum, J.