Northrop Corp. v. Litronic Industries case brief summary
29 F.3d 1173
SYNOPSIS:
The parties both challenged an Illinois district court that awarded money damages in the amount that the appellee paid for products that were returned to the appellant pursuant to the UCC.
OVERVIEW:
-The appellee requested that the appellant submit an offer to sell goods.
-The offer and acceptance contained different terms (materially different).
-The appellant's offer contained a 90 day warranty and the appellee's acceptance contained a warranty that was unlimited.
-The appellee rejected the appellant's goods after sixth months as defective and began a suit for reimbursement.
-The lower court made an award to the appellee money that was paid for the products, however the court denied recovery for the products that the appellee failed to return.
-The appellee claimed entitlement to the products as a security for the breach of contract claim under UCC 2-711(3).
HOLDING:
-The court which reviewed disagreed with the appellee and affirmed the judgement of the lower court, since, under UCC 9-207 and 9-506, the appellee could not demand payment for goods which it had failed to account for.
ANALYSIS:
-The court also stated that a valid contract did exist since the appellee failed to make the unlimited warranty a condition of its acceptance to the sale.
RULES:
U.C.C. art. 2 provides that a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the lower court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
29 F.3d 1173
SYNOPSIS:
The parties both challenged an Illinois district court that awarded money damages in the amount that the appellee paid for products that were returned to the appellant pursuant to the UCC.
OVERVIEW:
-The appellee requested that the appellant submit an offer to sell goods.
-The offer and acceptance contained different terms (materially different).
-The appellant's offer contained a 90 day warranty and the appellee's acceptance contained a warranty that was unlimited.
-The appellee rejected the appellant's goods after sixth months as defective and began a suit for reimbursement.
-The lower court made an award to the appellee money that was paid for the products, however the court denied recovery for the products that the appellee failed to return.
-The appellee claimed entitlement to the products as a security for the breach of contract claim under UCC 2-711(3).
HOLDING:
-The court which reviewed disagreed with the appellee and affirmed the judgement of the lower court, since, under UCC 9-207 and 9-506, the appellee could not demand payment for goods which it had failed to account for.
ANALYSIS:
-The court also stated that a valid contract did exist since the appellee failed to make the unlimited warranty a condition of its acceptance to the sale.
RULES:
U.C.C. art. 2 provides that a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
OUTCOME:
The court affirmed the lower court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment