Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Draft Systems, Inc. v. Rimar Manufacturing, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
524 F. Supp. 1049 (1981)


Facts

Draft Systems, Inc. (Draft) (plaintiff) made devices used for tapping beer kegs. Draft’s dispensing devices had two parts, a valve and a syphon tube. Draft entered a contract for the purchase of syphon tubes from Rimar Manufacturing, Inc. (Rimar) (defendant). The tubes were supposed to be made with nylon-11, but the tubes that Rimar delivered were actually made with nylon-6. When the tubes arrived, Draft checked them to be sure they were the correct size and quantity. Draft also looked at the product certification, which indicated that the tubes were made from nylon-11. Nylon-6 and nylon-11 can only be distinguished from one another with infrared. Draft became aware of the lower-grade nylon used in the syphon tubes after a number of beer distributors complained. The nylon-6 tubes absorbed more beer than nylon-11 tubes would have, causing the beer to go bad. Draft sued Rimar. The jury found that Rimar had breached both the warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The jury awarded Draft about $400,000 in damages. The award included consequential damages, part of which was for the interest Draft had to pay on a loan it took out while repairing and replacing the defective dispensing devices. Rimar claimed that Draft was not entitled to consequential damages and especially not the interest. Specifically, Rimar argued that it did not know that the tubes could not be more absorbent than nylon-11 tubes would be. Rimar also argued that Draft should have found the nylon-6 problem during its inspection.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 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.

  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 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.