Daitom, Inc. v. Pennwalt Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
741 F.2d 1569 (1984)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Pennwalt Corp. (defendant) entered into a contract to sell two rotary vacuum dryers to Daitom, Inc. (plaintiff). Pennwalt sent a proposal to Daitom with form conditions attached, one of which limited any lawsuit resulting from the contract to one year from the date of delivery. Daitom then issued a purchase order that had the same material conditions as the proposal (equipment specifications, price, shipment terms, and payment terms). The purchase order had boilerplate terms on the back, including a reservation of all “rights and remedies available at law.” Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the statute of limitations for a contract for the sale of goods is 4 years. The dryers were delivered to the Daitom’s plant while it was under construction and were not installed for over a year. It was then discovered that the dryers were defective. Pennwalt attempted to repair them but was unsuccessful. Daitom brought suit for breach of contract. Pennwalt filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, holding that the parties were bound to the one-year statute of limitation listed in the proposal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Doyle, J.)
Dissent (Barrett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.