Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
794 F.2d 1440 (1986)



Krack Corp. (defendant) manufactured cooling units using steel tubes manufactured by Metal-Matic, Inc. (third-party defendant). Each year, Krack submitted a blanket purchase order for steel tubing to Metal-Matic and then, throughout the year, Krack sent release purchase orders to Metal-Matic requesting that tubing be shipped. Metal-Matic responded to these release purchase orders by sending Krack an acknowledgement form and then shipping the tubing. Metal-Matic’s acknowledgement form contained a disclaimer of all liability for consequential damages from its tubing and contained a clause limiting Metal-Matic's liability for defects in the tubing to a refund of the purchase price or repair or replacement of the tubing. Krack expressed disapproval of these terms at least once during the parties' 10-year relationship, but Metal-Matic refused to change the terms, and Krack continued to accept and pay for Metal-Matic’s tubing. In 1981, Krack sold one of its cooling units, manufactured with Metal-Matic tubing, to Diamond Growers, Inc. (Diamond) (plaintiff). The following year, the unit began leaking ammonia into Diamond’s warehouse. Diamond had to remove fruit from the warehouse as a result of the leak. Upon closer inspection, it was found that the leak was caused by a small hole in Metal-Matic’s tubing. Diamond brought suit against Krack to recover damages for the loss in value to its fruit. Krack brought a third-party complaint against Metal-Matic for indemnification. A jury found Krack liable for damages and found that Krack was entitled to contribution from Metal-Matic for 30 percent of these damages. Metal-Matic moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the court denied the motion and entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Metal-Matic appealed claiming, among other things, that it had disclaimed all liability for consequential damages and had limited its liability for defects to the purchase price or repair or replacement of the tubing.

Rule of Law


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 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial