Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. case brief
summary
532 F.2d 957 (1976)
CASE FACTS
Appellee corporation entered into a contract with appellant airline manufacturer in which appellant contractually agreed to make 100 jet planes to assist in appellee's technological conversion. Conflict arose when the transfer of the commercial planes commenced several years after the agreed upon delivery time. Specifically, appellee brought collective breach of contract actions against defendant asserting that it was entitled to substantial damages. A jury trial progressed, and appellant was found without any reasonable excuse for the delay. Appellant challenged the decision, asserting that the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) 50 App. U.S.C.S. § 2061 et seq., allowed it a late delivery where national security was prioritized.
DISCUSSION
Upon final determination, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that a new trial was warranted because the district court improperly omitted jury explanations of the DPA and evidence of appellee's failure to give notice of the breached contracts.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
532 F.2d 957 (1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant airline manufacturer
challenged a jury verdict entered in favor of appellee corporation
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, asserting that it had an excusable delay in breaching
several contracts with appellee.CASE FACTS
Appellee corporation entered into a contract with appellant airline manufacturer in which appellant contractually agreed to make 100 jet planes to assist in appellee's technological conversion. Conflict arose when the transfer of the commercial planes commenced several years after the agreed upon delivery time. Specifically, appellee brought collective breach of contract actions against defendant asserting that it was entitled to substantial damages. A jury trial progressed, and appellant was found without any reasonable excuse for the delay. Appellant challenged the decision, asserting that the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) 50 App. U.S.C.S. § 2061 et seq., allowed it a late delivery where national security was prioritized.
DISCUSSION
Upon final determination, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that a new trial was warranted because the district court improperly omitted jury explanations of the DPA and evidence of appellee's failure to give notice of the breached contracts.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment