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

Dynamic Machine Works, Inc. v. Machine & Electrical Consultants, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
831 N.E.2d 875 (2005)


Dynamic Machine Works, Inc. (Dynamic) (plaintiff) is a manufacturer of precision components. Machine & Electrical Consultants, Inc. (Machine) (defendant) is a distributor of machinery and equipment. In January 2003, Dynamic entered into a contract to purchase a lathe from Machine. The lathe was to be manufactured by a separate company based in Taiwan. In June 2003, an outbreak of “SARS” in Taiwan delayed production of the lathe. Machine and Dynamic entered into an oral agreement, confirmed in letters between the parties, to extend the deadline for the installation and commissioning of the lathe to September 19, 2003. Any further delay would result in a $500 penalty per day for Machine. Machine delivered the lathe to Dynamic on October 9, 2003. Throughout October and November, the lathe was tested and readjusted. On December 9, 2003, Dynamic’s president wrote a letter to Machine’s president stating that Dynamic would grant Machine an extension for the final deadline for the lathe to be fully and unconditionally commissioned. Dynamic stated that the final deadline would be December 19, 2003. Dynamic later concluded that the lathe would most likely not be ready by December 11th, Dynamic informed Machine that it intended to retract the deadline extension and not accept delivery of the lathe at all. Dynamic brought suit against Machine in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district judge certified the following question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: “Under the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Commercial Code, does a buyer have a right to retract a written extension allowing more time for the seller to cure defects in a delivered product absent reliance on the extension by the seller?”

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Cordy, 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 498,000 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 498,000 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