Week3 Case Study Proc 5810
TRANSAMERICA OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LYNES, INC. and Baker International Corporation, Defendants-Appellants
No. 81-1505
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
723 F.2d 758; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14288; 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1076
Procedural History:
The previous holding of this case was appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 find 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:
Transamerica Oil Corporation is looking to recover damages done by Baker International Corporation and its subsidiary, Lynes Inc for the breach of an express warranty. Transamerica is in the business of drilling and completing oil and gas wells. They claimed that the injection packers that they brought from Lynes, Inc failed to performed properly. The jury consider that the plaintiff should receive damages because it was a breach of contract, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in satisfactory condition. Lynes Inc. is maintaining that the action is barred by the statute of limitation and that Transamerica expressly agreed to a limitation of liability and a limitation of remedies.
Issues:
What is the appropriate statute of limitations under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?
Did the disclaimers of warranties and limitation of remedies in invoices accompanying shipments of equipment affect the case?
Answer/Holding:
The trial court neglect to accurately instruct the jury on the damages involved.
No. 81-1505
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
723 F.2d 758; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14288; 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1076
Procedural History:
The previous holding of this case was appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 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 find 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:
Transamerica Oil Corporation is looking to recover damages done by Baker International Corporation and its subsidiary, Lynes Inc for the breach of an express warranty. Transamerica is in the business of drilling and completing oil and gas wells. They claimed that the injection packers that they brought from Lynes, Inc failed to performed properly. The jury consider that the plaintiff should receive damages because it was a breach of contract, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in satisfactory condition. Lynes Inc. is maintaining that the action is barred by the statute of limitation and that Transamerica expressly agreed to a limitation of liability and a limitation of remedies.
Issues:
What is the appropriate statute of limitations under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?
Did the disclaimers of warranties and limitation of remedies in invoices accompanying shipments of equipment affect the case?
Answer/Holding:
The trial court neglect to accurately instruct the jury on the damages involved.
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)