Ionics, Inc. v. Elmwood Sensors, Inc. case brief summary
110 F.3d 184 (1997)
CASE FACTS
Appellee buyer purchased thermostats from appellant manufacturer for installation in water dispensers. Several of the dispensers subsequently caused fires which resulted from defects in the sensors. Appellee filed suit against appellant in order to recover costs incurred from the fires. Before trial, the district court denied appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and subsequently certified to the court the question whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-207 had been properly applied. Appellee argued that appellant's language limiting warranties implied at law was proposed as an addition to, but was not in conflict with, the explicit terms of its form which provided that the contract was governed exclusively by the terms included on the purchase order and that all remedies available under state law were available to appellee.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The denial of appellant manufacture's motion for partial summary judgment was affirmed because the terms of the contract consisted of those terms on which the writing of the parties' agreed, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any statutory provisions. Since appellant's additional terms did not become part of the contract, they were properly denied partial summary judgment.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
110 F.3d 184 (1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts certified the question to the court of
whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-207 had been properly
applied to the cause of action brought by appellee buyer against
appellant manufacturer for defects in thermostats which caused
fires.CASE FACTS
Appellee buyer purchased thermostats from appellant manufacturer for installation in water dispensers. Several of the dispensers subsequently caused fires which resulted from defects in the sensors. Appellee filed suit against appellant in order to recover costs incurred from the fires. Before trial, the district court denied appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and subsequently certified to the court the question whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, § 2-207 had been properly applied. Appellee argued that appellant's language limiting warranties implied at law was proposed as an addition to, but was not in conflict with, the explicit terms of its form which provided that the contract was governed exclusively by the terms included on the purchase order and that all remedies available under state law were available to appellee.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the order denying appellee's motion for partial summary judgment, and the case was remanded because any additional terms did not become part of the contract under § 2-207(2) because notification of objection to conflicting terms was in the purchase order form only, and the new terms had materially altered those in the offer.
CONCLUSION
The denial of appellant manufacture's motion for partial summary judgment was affirmed because the terms of the contract consisted of those terms on which the writing of the parties' agreed, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any statutory provisions. Since appellant's additional terms did not become part of the contract, they were properly denied partial summary judgment.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment