Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
908 F.3d 675 (2018)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Florida homeowners Douglas Bohn and Steven Dye (the homeowners) (plaintiffs) hired roofers to install new roofs on their homes. The roofers purchased and installed Tamko Building Products, Inc. (Tamko) (defendant) Heritage 30 shingles on both homes, and both sets of shingles crumbled or cracked and shed asphalt granules. The homeowners sued Tamko for breach of contract. Tamko filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing a binding-arbitration term in its purchase agreement that was printed in its entirety on the outside of every package of its roofing shingles. Tamko alleged that by unwrapping its shingles and retaining the shingles for more than 30 days, the homeowners—through their roofer-agents—accepted the terms of its purchase agreement, including the arbitration provision. The homeowners alleged that consumers were not on notice that roof shingles came wrapped in purchase-agreement terms and could not assent to terms and conditions of which they were not aware. The district court granted Tamko’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the homeowners’ claim. The homeowners appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.