Opinion ID: 586986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express or Implied Agreement to Assume Liability

Text: 29 The Dubravetzes' contention that Pillsbury expressly assumed Haagen Dazs's liabilities to franchisees arising out of tort claims is belied by the facts. The acquisition agreement between Pillsbury and Haagen Dazs expressly limits Pillsbury's obligations to the leases, agreements, contracts, plans and commitments listed in the balance sheet, and all other agreements and contracts entered into in the ordinary course of business at any time prior to the Closing. Although the Dubravetzes argue that the sale of franchises was unquestionably the core of [Haagen Dazs's] business, this fact does not transform Haagen Dazs's alleged fraud on the Dubravetzes into an agreement, plan, commitment or contract made in the ordinary course of business, for which Pillsbury assumed liability. 30 The Dubravetzes also point to a Pillsbury post-acquisition statement to the California Department of Corporations indicating that the business, assets and liabilities of Haagen Dazs Franchise, Inc. were acquired by the Haagen Dazs Shoppes, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pillsbury Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota. They contend that this statement shows Pillsbury's implied intent to assume Haagen Dazs's tort liability. We reject this argument. 31 Pillsbury's assumption of liabilities is expressly and carefully set forth in the acquisition agreement. It is implausible that Pillsbury reversed this position and gratuitously agreed to assume Haagen Dazs's tort liabilities and that it chose to do so by expressing this reversal of position by the terse statement it made to the California Department of Corporations. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 2083, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992) (requiring that the nonmoving party's inferences be reasonable in order to reach the jury). Moreover, in considering the effect of a similar statement Pillsbury made to the Washington Department of Corporations in another case involving a claim against Pillsbury for successor liability in its acquisition of Haagen Dazs, a district court in Minnesota concluded that [i]n light of the specific language of the [Pillsbury-Haagen Dazs acquisition] agreement, the evidence presented by plaintiffs is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact about whether Pillsbury assumed liability for any prior breaches of the franchise agreements by [Haagen Dazs]. Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F.Supp. 791, 813 (D.Minn.1989). This analysis applies with equal force here.