Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
794 F.2d 1440 (1986)
Krack Corp. (Krack) (defendant) manufactures cooling units using steel tubes manufactured by Metal-Matic, Inc. (Metal-Matic) (third party defendant). Each year, Krack submitted a blanket purchase order for steel tubes to Metal-Matic. 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. Additionally, Metal-Matic’s form contained a clause limiting its liability for defects in the tubing to a refund of the purchase price, or to repair or replacement of the tubing. On several occasions, Krack expressed disapproval of these terms, but Metal-Matic refused to change them 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). Shortly thereafter, the unit began leaking ammonia into Diamond’s warehouse and damaged a significant amount of Diamond’s stored fruit. Upon closer inspection, the leak was discovered to be caused by a small hole in Metal-Matic’s tubing. Diamond brought suit against Krack to recover damages for the damaged fruit. Krack brought a third party complaint against Metal-Matic for indemnification. The trial court held Krack liable for damages, and found Krack was entitled to contribution from Metal-Matic for thirty percent of these damages. Metal-Matic appealed on the ground that it disclaimed all liability for consequential damages and limited its other liability in its purchase order with Krack, and that no evidence showed that the defective tubing was actually manufactured by Metal-Matic and not one of Krack’s other tubing suppliers.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wiggins, 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 97,000 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.
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 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.