Transamerica Oil Corporation V. Lynes, 723 F.2d 758
ACW Case study #1 Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Lynes, 723 F.2d 758.
Procedural History:
Transamerica, who conducts oil and gas drilling, solicited Lynes about their advertisement regarding an injection packer and decided purchased several of them only later to determine that they did not perform properly. Plaintiff decided to file suit, under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the plaintiff claim that there was a breach of an express warranty by the defendant. The acquired good did not perform. A jury in the state of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals the decision.
Facts:
A suit was 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, the plaintiff claim that the item that was acquired failed to perform, the jury deliberated that the plaintiff should receive damages, and yes it was a breach of a contractual agreement, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in reasonable condition. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description
Plaintiff argued, the defendant appealed the decision, and claim that the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, the defendant state that because the plaintiff signed a disclaimer he agreed to a limited. The only problem with this is Defendants' advertisements stated that the production injection packer was designed for permanent use in open holes. Under Kansas law, advertising may form a part of an express warranty the trial court excluded from evidence invoices that
Procedural History:
Transamerica, who conducts oil and gas drilling, solicited Lynes about their advertisement regarding an injection packer and decided purchased several of them only later to determine that they did not perform properly. Plaintiff decided to file suit, under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the plaintiff claim that there was a breach of an express warranty by the defendant. The acquired good did not perform. A jury in the state of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals the decision.
Facts:
A suit was 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, the plaintiff claim that the item that was acquired failed to perform, the jury deliberated that the plaintiff should receive damages, and yes it was a breach of a contractual agreement, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in reasonable condition. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description
Plaintiff argued, the defendant appealed the decision, and claim that the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, the defendant state that because the plaintiff signed a disclaimer he agreed to a limited. The only problem with this is Defendants' advertisements stated that the production injection packer was designed for permanent use in open holes. Under Kansas law, advertising may form a part of an express warranty the trial court excluded from evidence invoices that