ALLIED STEEL & CONVEYORS, INC. V. FORD MOTOR CO.
277 F. 2d 907 (6th Cir. 1960)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Allied (D) contested order of the district court which entered
judgment in Ford's (P) favor in an action alleging that certain written agreements between
the parties, purporting to indemnify P against damages resulting from its own acts of
negligence, were binding upon the parties at the time D's employee suffered injury.
FACTS: P ordered from D machinery and equipment for $71,325.00. D was to install the
machinery and equipment on P's premises for an additional consideration of $6,900.00. If P
elected to install the machinery with its own labor, D would furnish a supervisor to direct
the installation on a per diem basis. The order provided that 'the signing and returning of
the Acknowledgment Copy by D to P shall constitute acceptance by Seller of this Purchase
order and of all of its terms and conditions.' P submitted its order on printed forms
regularly used by P. Item 15 of that printed form provided that if D was required to perform
work on P's premises, D would be responsible for all damages or injuries occurring as a
result of the fault or negligence of its own employees, including any damages or injuries to
P's employees and property. Another indemnity provision was also attached by P which
required the Seller to assume full responsibility not only for the fault or negligence of
its own employees but also for the fault or negligence of P's employees, arising out of or
in connection with D's work. This extra provision was marked 'VOID.' P then submitted its
Amendment No. 1 to the purchase order, deleting the item of $6,900.00 for the cost of
installation by D and providing that the installation would be done by P. These were
accepted by D and the agreements were performed. Amendment No. 2 proposed to purchase
additional machinery to be installed on P's premises by D, at a total cost of $173,700.00.
Amendment No. 2, as did Amendment No. 1, provided: 'This purchase order agreement is not
binding until accepted. Acceptance should be executed on acknowledgment copy which should be
returned to buyer.' This time the extra provision was not marked 'VOID.' On this Amendment,
the installation work on P's premises was to be performed by D's employees. The extra
provision also stated 'Such of the terms and conditions of Seller's Purchase Order as are
inconsistent with the provisions hereinabove set forth are hereby superseded.' The second
amendment was duly executed by D on or about November 10, 1956, and was received by P on
November 12, 1956. But D had already begun installation of the machinery before the
agreements were signed. On September 5, 1956, an employee of D, sustained personal injuries
as a result of the negligence of D's employees. That employee sued P. P added D, as a
third-party defendant, relying upon the indemnity provisions of the extra provision. D's
injured employee got the verdict against P for $12,500.00. D appealed from the denial by the
District Court of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury and entry
of judgment against it in favor of P upon the third-party complaint. D claimed that the
agreement was not in effect when the injury occurred. D claims it did not become bound by
the provisions of the amendment until November 1956, when it actually signed and returned
the acknowledgment.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment