LEWIS V. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
438 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1971)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Mobil (D) defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict
in favor of the Lewis (P) in the amount of $89,250 for damages alleged to be caused by use
of D's oil.
FACTS: Lewis (P) decided to convert his power equipment to hydraulic equipment. He
purchased a hydraulic system in May 1963. P requested from Frank Rowe, a local Mobil oil
dealer, the proper hydraulic fluid to operate his machinery. The prior owner of the
hydraulic system had used Pacemaker oil supplied by Cities Service, but P had been a
customer of D's for many years and desired to continue with D. The only information given to
Rowe by Lewis was that the machinery was operated by a gear-type pump; Rowe did not request
any further information. Rowe contacted a D representative for a recommendation and sold Pa
product known as Ambrex 810. This is a straight mineral oil with no chemical additives.
Within a few days, P began experiencing difficulty. The oil changed color, foamed over, and
got hot. The oil was changed a number of times. Approximately six months after operations
with the equipment had begun, the system broke down, and a complete new system was
installed. From April 1965 until April 1967, six new pumps were required during this period,
as they continually broke down. P changed the brand of pump from a Commercial to a Tyrone
pump. The Tyrone pump used a disposable filter element. Ambrex 810 oil was also recommended
by Mobil and used with this pump, which completely broke down three weeks later. P was
visited for the first time by a representative of D, as well as a representative of the
Tyrone pump manufacturer. The system was completely flushed and cleaned, a new Tyrone pump
installed, and a new oil was use which contained a 'defoamant.' P's system worked
satisfactorily up until the time of trial, some two and one-half years later. P sued D. D
contends that there was no warranty of fitness, that the breakdowns were caused not by the
oil but by improper filtration, and that in any event there can be no recovery of loss of
profits in this case. On appeal D maintains that there was no warranty of fitness and that
at most there was only a warranty of merchantability and that there was no proof of breach
of this warranty, since there was no proof that Ambrex 810 is unfit for use in hydraulic
systems generally.
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