Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp.

California Court of Appeal
186 Cal. Rptr. 114 (1982)


Facts

Alex Abatti, a farmer, owned A & M Produce Co. (A & M) (plaintiff). In 1973, Abatti decided to grow tomatoes for the first time. Tomatoes are harvested using equipment that Abatti had never used. Abatti got one bid for this equipment plus a hydrocooler. Abatti then spoke with FMC Corp. (FMC) (defendant). FMC said that Abatti would not need a hydrocooler with FMC’s equipment, which cost less than the other bid. Abatti agreed to buy FMC’s equipment and signed FMC’s field-order form, which was a standard double-sided form setting out the purchase agreement’s terms. On the back of the form was a paragraph titled “Warranty” that, in bold print, disclaimed all warranties. The back of the form also had a paragraph titled “Disclaimer of Consequential Damages” that stated that FMC would not be liable for any consequential damages. Consequential damages result from the secondary effects of a contract breach. A & M began harvesting tomatoes with FMC’s equipment. The equipment did not sort the tomatoes quickly enough, causing the tomatoes to pile up and get damaged. The absence of a hydrocooler also caused the damaged tomatoes to develop fungus. A & M contacted FMC asking to return the equipment in exchange for a refund. FMC refused and told A & M to pay the balance of the price. A & M sued FMC for breach of express and implied warranties. The trial judge ruled that the clauses disclaiming all warranties and disclaiming consequential damages were unconscionable under the circumstances. Therefore, the jury did not see the back of the contract where the disclaimers were located and awarded A & M nearly $300,000 in damages. FMC appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Wiener, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.