Singer Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company case brief
summary
579 F.2d 433 (1978)
CASE FACTS
Appellee buying corporation filed a diversity contract action against appellant selling corporation to recover losses incurred when the seller allegedly breached both an express warranty and an implied warranty of fitness in failing to provide the buyer with suitable industrial paint. The factual controversy was the cause of certain blotches and streaks on the painted ware produced by the buyer.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the district court's judgment for appellee buying corporation and held that appellant selling corporation had breached an implied warranty of fitness by failing to provide appellee with suitable industrial paint. The court ruled that the question of the parties' intent was a proper issue for the jury and the court found sufficient evidence to support the finding that appellant's product was not suitable for appellee's use.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
579 F.2d 433 (1978)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant selling corporation sought
review of a decision from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri upholding a jury verdict for appellee
buying corporation in appellee's action alleging appellant breached
both an express warranty and an implied warranty of fitness by
failing to provide appellee with suitable industrial paint for its
plant operations.CASE FACTS
Appellee buying corporation filed a diversity contract action against appellant selling corporation to recover losses incurred when the seller allegedly breached both an express warranty and an implied warranty of fitness in failing to provide the buyer with suitable industrial paint. The factual controversy was the cause of certain blotches and streaks on the painted ware produced by the buyer.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the district court's judgment for the buyer and held that the seller had breached the implied warranty of fitness by failing to provide the buyer with suitable industrial paint.
- The court concluded that the contract was ambiguous and that the seller failed to delineate and limit allocation of risk.
- The court held that the questions regarding the buyer's reliance and seller's knowledge of that reliance were factual jury determination.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to establish that the paint, and not a significantly non-uniform substrate, was the cause of the contested blotches and streaks.
- As such, the trial court did not err in denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the seller's counterclaim for paint sold and delivered or for services rendered.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment for appellee buying corporation and held that appellant selling corporation had breached an implied warranty of fitness by failing to provide appellee with suitable industrial paint. The court ruled that the question of the parties' intent was a proper issue for the jury and the court found sufficient evidence to support the finding that appellant's product was not suitable for appellee's use.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment