MOSCATIELLO V. PITTSBURGH CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT CO.
595 A.2d 1190 (1991)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Pittsburgh (D) sought review of damages award to Moscatiello (P)
construction company.
FACTS: P (buyer) and D (seller) entered into a contract for the purchase of a concrete
paving machine ('paver') manufactured by Curbmaster. A month before the contract was
executed in May, 1987, Franco Moscatiello and his superintendent, Jay Palino, met with the
vice president of D to discuss the purchase of the paver. D was aware that P had been
awarded a contract by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ('PennDot') to
reconstruct a road, and that PennDot required that the concrete surface of the road be laid
by a certain type of paving machine. The manufacturer of the paver, Curbmaster, also
participated in these preliminary discussions. The vice president of Curbmaster had a
telephone conversation with a representative of D and P in which he suggested that either of
two machines manufactured by Curbmaster would be suitable for the job and acceptable to
PennDot. The purchased spreader-finisher machine went for a total price of $ 85,125.42. D's
purchase agreement stated on the reverse side that no warranties were offered on equipment
sold and that any implied warranties were excluded in favor of the manufacturer's offer of
warranties. The contract also contained a provision which limited a buyer's remedy solely to
return of the purchase price, less wear and use of the machine. In addition, all
consequential and incidental damages were expressly excluded. Neither D's vice president nor
the salesman in attendance directed P's attention to the reverse side of the contract where
the warranty exclusions were printed. When the paver arrived, it contained no warranty
information from the manufacturer. The trial court found that the manual which ultimately
was delivered to P did not contain Curbmaster's warranty exclusions and disclaimers. The
Curbmaster representative never informed P employees that the machine's warranties were
limited or excluded. The paver failed to lay concrete evenly and the finished product was
unacceptable to PennDot. D and Curbmaster unsuccessfully attempted numerous times to remedy
the defects in the machine. The machine finally was returned to Curbmaster in December,
1987. P incurred increased labor costs in order to produce a product acceptable to PennDot.
P sued Ds asserting breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose. The trial court awarded $146,811.43 in damages, plus interest, to P against Ds
jointly. Ds 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