Case Study - Transamerica Oil Corp V Lynes
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT
Case No. 81-1505
Transamerica Oil Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lynes, Inc. and Baker International Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
723F.2d 758; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14288; 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1076
-------------------------------------------------
December 21, 1983
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff brought suit under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to recover damages resulting from the breach of an express warranty by the defendant. A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed the decision.
SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
1. Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the defendant for breach of an express warranty under Kansas law. 2. Plaintiff argued that the product purchased from defendant failed to perform. 3. Jury found in favor of the plaintiff and plaintiff was awarded damages. 4. Defendant appealed the decision. 5. Defendant claimed suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations. 6. Defendant claimed plaintiff expressly agreed to a limitation of liability and a limitation of remedies by signing invoices that contained disclaimers. 7. The trial court excluded from evidence invoices that contained the limitations of remedy.
Overview: Transamerica conducts global oil and gas exploration, development, and production. Lynes, a subsidiary of Baker International, provides the world’s oil and gas industry with products and services for drilling and production. Lynes/Baker advertised its production injection packer product in a trade journal as being suitable for permanent use in open holes even though most production injection packers were only employed for temporary use. Subsequently, Harold Brown, President of Transamerica, spoke with a Lynes/Baker sales representative and district manager, both of
TENTH CIRCUIT
Case No. 81-1505
Transamerica Oil Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lynes, Inc. and Baker International Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
723F.2d 758; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14288; 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1076
-------------------------------------------------
December 21, 1983
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff brought suit under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to recover damages resulting from the breach of an express warranty by the defendant. A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed the decision.
SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
1. Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the defendant for breach of an express warranty under Kansas law. 2. Plaintiff argued that the product purchased from defendant failed to perform. 3. Jury found in favor of the plaintiff and plaintiff was awarded damages. 4. Defendant appealed the decision. 5. Defendant claimed suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations. 6. Defendant claimed plaintiff expressly agreed to a limitation of liability and a limitation of remedies by signing invoices that contained disclaimers. 7. The trial court excluded from evidence invoices that contained the limitations of remedy.
Overview: Transamerica conducts global oil and gas exploration, development, and production. Lynes, a subsidiary of Baker International, provides the world’s oil and gas industry with products and services for drilling and production. Lynes/Baker advertised its production injection packer product in a trade journal as being suitable for permanent use in open holes even though most production injection packers were only employed for temporary use. Subsequently, Harold Brown, President of Transamerica, spoke with a Lynes/Baker sales representative and district manager, both of
Citations: 226 Kan. 172,603 P.2d 602 (1979) Atlas Industries, Inc 216 Kan, 213, 531 P.2d 41 (1975) Topeka Mill & Elevator Co 168 Kan. 428, 435, 213 P.2d 964,969 (1950) Boehm v 473 F.2d 445,449 (10th Cir. 1973) Scheuler v 1 Kan.App2d 525, 528, 571 P.2d 48, 51 (1977) Young & Cooper, Inc 214 Kan. 311, 324, 327, 521 P.2d 281, 291, 293 (1974) Jordan v 220 Kan. 431, 552 P.2d 881, 884 (1976) King v 701 F.2d 1313, 1315 (10th Cir. 1983) Wille v 219 Kan. 755, 549 P.2d 903, (1976) Album Graphics, Inc 87 Ill.App.3d 338, 42 Ill.Dec. 332, 408 N.E.2d 1041 (1980) Medical Development Corp 479 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir. 1973) Ebasco Services Inc 402 F.Supp. 421,442-43 (E.D.Pa. 1975) Album Graphics, Inc 87 Ill.App3d 338, 42 Ill.Dec. 332, 408 N.E.2d 1041 (1980) Dorton v 453 F.2d 1161,1169 (6th Cir. 1972) Posttape Associates v 537 F.2d 751, 756-57 (3d Cir. 1976) Statutes and Other Legal Authorities