Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc.

971 F.2d 272 (1992)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
971 F.2d 272 (1992)

Play video

Facts

Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture (Brinderson) (plaintiff) is a general contractor. Pacific Erectors, Inc. (Pacific) (defendant) is a subcontractor. In May 1985, Brinderson was awarded a contract to construct a coal-fired power plant. Brinderson entered into negotiations with Pacific to construct the Flue Gas System (FGS) as part of the overall power plant project. Pacific offered to construct the support steel for FGS. Brinderson, however, wanted Pacific to construct all the required steel for FGS and to build the entire FGS component. In the third negotiations meeting between Brinderson and Pacific, the parties discussed line by line the proposed contract for the work to be performed. The version of the contract submitted by Brinderson stated that Pacific would “erect complete” and “make a complete installation” of the FGS. Pacific disagreed with this statement. Pacific alleges that after voicing its disagreement with this requirement, Brinderson informed Pacific that the language could be interpreted as only requiring Pacific to erect the support steel and complete picks and sets for the FGS. Pacific agreed to this interpretation of the terms, but the language of the contract remained unchanged. Additionally, the contract contained a merger clause stating that it was the final and complete writing between Brinderson and Pacific. Pacific began work on the contract, but refused to erect the entire FGS. Brinderson brought suit in federal district court against Pacific, alleging breach of contract. At trial, Pacific was permitted to submit extrinsic evidence showing that the parties intended the meaning of the contractual language to only encompass the erection of support steel and picks and sets by Pacific. The jury ruled in favor of Pacific, and Brinderson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wiggins, J.)

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 747,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership