Brookings Municipal Utilities, Inc. v. Amoco Chemical Co.
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
103 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (2000)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Brookings Municipal Utilities, Inc. (Brookings) (plaintiff) oversaw a construction project for a large sewer line. The project was being completed by a private company, NCU, and the steel was supplied by Amoco Chemical Co. and Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company (collectively, Amoco) (defendants). The type of pipe used for the project was Amoco’s Techite pipe, which Brookings approved with the expectation that it would resist corrosion and be functional for 50 years. The pipe, however, did not conform to warranties, experiencing numerous breaks. Brookings, 16 years after completion, ultimately decided that the sewer line needed to be replaced, at a cost of $1,056,788. Brookings did not discuss these problems or its decision to replace the pipeline with either NCU or Amoco. Brookings brought suit for breach of warranty and breach of implied warranty. Amoco filed a motion for summary judgment. Brookings made several arguments as to why its failure to provide notice should not preclude recovery, including that (1) Amoco was aware of the defects; and (2) Brookings did not buy the pipe from Amoco and thus could not be considered a buyer for purposes of the notice requirement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Piersol, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
