From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Daisy Manufacturing Co. v. NCR Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
29 F.3d 389 (1994)
Daisy Division Victor Comptometer Corporation (Daisy Division) contracted with NCR Corporation (NCR) (defendant) as a customer for equipment and maintenance services. The agreement contained an arbitration provision stating that any controversy related to the agreement, or an agreement the parties later entered into, would be settled by arbitration. NCR typically signed such documents at the outset of a commercial relationship with a customer. For orders with Daisy Division, both companies used the names Daisy Manufacturing Co. and Daisy Manufacturing Co., Inc. interchangeably. Several years later, Daisy Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Daisy Manufacturing) (plaintiff) was formed and purchased the assets of Daisy Division, continuing the business relationship with NCR. Daisy Manufacturing did not tell NCR about the change in companies and did not attempt to correct the company designation on forms. Daisy Manufacturing ordered a computer system from NCR. The purchase order included two checkboxes next to statements indicating that the order would be subject to either the terms of the parties’ customer agreement or those listed on the order, which included an arbitration provision. Daisy Manufacturing did not check either box. Daisy Manufacturing experienced problems with the computer system and filed suit in federal district court for breach of contract. Citing the arbitration provision, NCR moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The district court denied the motion. The court found that Daisy Manufacturing was a separate entity from Daisy Division and was not bound by Daisy Division’s customer agreement. The court also found that because Daisy Manufacturing did not check the boxes on the purchase order, it was not bound by the order’s terms. NCR appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Friedman, J.)
What to do next…
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 546,000 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
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 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.