Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. Barbee
Supreme Court of Washington
133 Wash.2d 509, 946 P.2d 760 (1997)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. (Central) (plaintiff), agreed to install cold-storage rooms for a Yakima orchard. Central entered into a contract with McCormack Engineering (McCormack) (defendant) to purchase specially manufactured refrigeration coils for use in the cold-storage rooms. McCormack delivered the coils to Central, and Central installed the coils at the orchard. The orchard experienced problems with the cold-storage rooms. The orchard defaulted on payments for the installation, and Central sued the orchard for payment. The orchard counterclaimed for damages against Central. More than four and a half years after McCormack delivered the coils to Central, Central paid a settlement to the orchard. At the same time, Central brought a third-party complaint against McCormack for contribution or indemnity for the damages owed to the orchard, alleging that defects in the coils had caused the orchard’s damages. The trial court held, and the court of appeals affirmed, that Central’s claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as the claim was brought more than four years after the delivery of the coils. Central appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sanders, J.)
Dissent (Guy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.