DIAMOND FRUIT GROWERS, INC. V. KRACK CORP.
794 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1986)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a judgment on an indemnification clause.
Krack (P), supplier and third party plaintiff, appealed from a judgment for Metal Matic (D)
third party defendant manufacturer on P third-party complaint against D for selling it
allegedly defective tubing, which it used to manufacture a cooling unit that it sold to
Diamond (P).
FACTS: Over the course of 10 years, Krack (P) ordered tubing from Metal Matic (D)
pursuant to an exchange of purchase orders and acknowledgment forms sent by both parties.
D's forms contained a disclaimer of liability to P for any incidental damages caused by any
defect in the tubing and made its assent expressly conditional to P's assent to this term.
P's purchase order did not contain this provision and P never formally assented. At one
time, P's purchasing manager objected to D's liability limitations, but both parties
continued to do business. Diamond (P) used one of the cooling units and sued Krack (P) for
damages to its fruit caused by a toxic leak in the tubing manufactured by D. P filed a third
party complaint against D. D used the disclaimer clause as its defense to P's third party
action. The trial court denied D's motion for a directed verdict. D was found to be 30%
responsible. D moved for judgment n.o.v. and the court denied that. D 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.
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