## Facts

- Wyoming Beverages, Inc. held the bottling/franchise rights for Pepsi products in parts of Wyoming and used Metz Beverage Company to distribute products in northeast Wyoming.
- Beginning in 1967, the parties operated under an oral distributorship arrangement that continued for about 30 years and was generally profitable.
- The parties repeatedly tried to put the relationship in writing but never agreed on key terms: Metz wanted termination only “for cause,” while Wyoming Beverages wanted a written contract with a limited term (three years).
- Over the years, Wyoming Beverages periodically expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of Metz’s performance, but the distributorship continued.
- After the death of Buster Metz (a key figure in Metz Beverage), Wyoming Beverages reevaluated the arrangement.
- In June 1997, Wyoming Beverages notified Metz that it considered the oral arrangement terminable at will and that it would end the relationship effective October 1997; Wyoming Beverages then took over distribution itself.
- Wyoming Beverages filed a declaratory-judgment action to determine the parties’ rights; Metz counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment (and other claims not resolved in the appealed order).
- The district court granted summary judgment against Metz on its breach-of-contract, fraud, and unjust-enrichment counterclaims and certified the order as final under Rule 54(b).
- Metz appealed, arguing that genuine disputes existed about the oral contract’s termination terms and that the court wrongly excluded evidence (including statements attributed to the deceased Buster Metz) bearing on the agreement’s terms.

## Issues

1. Did the district court have an adequate legal and factual basis to grant summary judgment against Metz on its breach-of-contract counterclaim, including whether the oral distributorship was terminable at will or only for cause?
2. Did Metz present evidence sufficient to create a triable fraud claim under Wyoming’s clear-and-convincing standard?
3. Could Metz proceed on an unjust-enrichment theory for the value of the distributorship and related goodwill after Wyoming Beverages ended the relationship and distributed products itself?

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Summary judgment on Metz’s breach-of-contract counterclaim was reversed because the record contained genuine disputes of material fact about the oral agreement’s terms, including termination rights, and because excluding key evidence skewed the summary-judgment record.
- Summary judgment on Metz’s fraud counterclaim was affirmed because Metz did not present clear and convincing evidence of an actionable false representation supporting fraud.
- Summary judgment on Metz’s unjust-enrichment counterclaim was affirmed because, on this record, Metz could not show Wyoming Beverages retained a benefit in a manner that equity would treat as unjust where Wyoming Beverages owned the relevant distribution rights and Metz’s claimed entitlement depended on proving contract terms.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when evidence permits competing findings about the terms of a long-running oral commercial arrangement, including whether termination is at will or limited to specified grounds.
- In an oral distributorship dispute, intent and contract terms may be shown through course of dealing, communications about performance and continuation, and other competent evidence; those factual questions commonly require trial when the record is mixed.
- At the summary-judgment stage, the court must evaluate the record using correct evidentiary rules; erroneous exclusion of material evidence bearing on contract formation or terms can create an incomplete record and justify reversal.
- Fraud in Wyoming requires proof of a false representation of fact, reliance, and damages, and the evidence must be clear and convincing; disagreement about contract meaning or negotiation positions, without a provable false statement of fact, will not support a fraud claim.
- Unjust enrichment requires a benefit conferred and retained under circumstances that make retention unjust; where the claimed “benefit” is the defendant’s resumption of business it has the legal right to conduct, restitution generally depends on establishing a contractual right rather than an equitable substitute.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that Metz presented enough evidence to require a trial on whether the parties’ decades-long oral distributorship could be ended at will or only for cause, and that the district court’s evidentiary rulings improperly narrowed the record on that question; however, the court also held that Metz’s proof did not meet Wyoming’s clear-and-convincing standard for fraud and did not support unjust enrichment where Metz’s claimed entitlement turned on proving contract terms and Wyoming Beverages owned the relevant distribution rights.


Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, 39 P.3d 1051 (2002)