COLFAX ENVELOPE CORP. V. LOCAL NO. 458-3M 20 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1994) CASE BRIEF

COLFAX ENVELOPE CORP. V. LOCAL NO. 458-3M

20 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1994)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This appeal in a suit over a collective bargaining agreement presents a fundamental issue of contract law, that of drawing the line between an ambiguous contract, requiring interpretation, and a contract that, because it cannot be said to represent the agreement of the parties at all, cannot be interpreted, can only be rescinded and the parties left to go their own ways.

FACTS: Colfax (P) manufacturer envelopes. It also prints them and the seventeen employees who do the printing are represented by LOCAL NO. 458-3M (D). P does not bother to participate in the collective bargaining negotiations between D and the Chicago Lithographers Association. Whenever D and the CLA sign a new collective bargaining agreement, the union sends P a summary of the changes that the new agreement has made in the old one which P signs and returns. If P doesn't like the terms negotiated by the CLA, it is free to do its own bargaining with D. In 1991 D sent a summary of the changes to P. The changes indicated that all presses operated as four-color presses would now require only three men to man them. P accepted the terms in the summary. When the actual agreement arrived, it contained a crucial typo, which supported P's understanding of the summary. When a corrected copy of the agreement finally arrived, the manning requirements stated in it were different from what P had understood from the summary. Four-color presses between 45 and 60 inches required three men, but all four-color presses over 60 inches required four men. P refused to sign the agreement but D took the position that P was bound to it by its acceptance of the summary. P sued for a declaration that it has no collective bargaining contract D because the parties never agreed on an essential term--the manning requirements for P's printing presses. D counterclaimed for an order to arbitrate. The district judge granted summary judgment for D, concluding that the reference to the new manning requirement for a four-color 60-inch press in the summary of changes that P had accepted referred unambiguously to 60-inch presses and had no application to any other presses, such as P's 78-inch presses. P appealed.

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner