From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Hitachi America, Ltd.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
406 F. Supp. 2d 819 (2005)

Facts
The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) (plaintiff) contracted with Hitachi America, Ltd. (Hitachi) (defendant) to supply catalyst for an emissions-reduction system designed and installed in a coal-fired electrical power plant. This system was known as the Selective Catalytic Reduction System (SCR system). B&W and Hitachi had begun negotiating in June 1999, when B&W sent Hitachi a request for a quotation for the catalyst. Several proposals were exchanged through December 1999. On December 9, 1999, Hitachi sent B&W a detailed proposal that included specific terms, such as price and warranties. B&W and Hitachi continued to negotiate several terms, including price. These terms were settled in June 2000, and B&W issued a purchase order to Hitachi on June 15, 2000. The purchase order stated that it was an offer rather than an acceptance and contained additional warranties that were more extensive than the warranties contained in the December 1999 proposal. Hitachi delivered the catalyst, but B&W experienced issues with the catalyst. Hitachi did not correct the issues, and B&W sued Hitachi for breach of contract. B&W and Hitachi disputed whether the June 2000 purchase order was an acceptance of the December 1999 proposal or an offer. B&W and Hitachi both moved for summary judgment on the issue of the terms of the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 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.