The panel also rejected Carolina Beverage’s argument that it lacked any remedy without a constructive-termination provision, stating that any shortage of available remedies was a function of the agreement that Carolina Beverage itself negotiated.
“For starters, any shortage of available remedies is a function of the agreement that Carolina Beverage itself negotiated; [when] two sophisticated and longstanding commercial businesses negotiate a contract, they are stuck with the terms of that contract,” the justices said. “To the extent Carolina Beverage feels that the agreement is unconscionable, it had the right to raise that challenge but opted not to do so.”
The panel also upheld the jury’s verdict rejecting Carolina Beverage’s concealment claim.
Carolina Beverage filed its complaint against Fiji in September 2019 after Fiji decided the previous year to directly distribute its products to retailers, gradually phasing out third-party distributors. By fall 2018, many of Carolina Beverage’s retailers had switched to direct distribution with Fiji, which notified Carolina Beverage it would not renew their agreement after its expiration in January 2019.
