Fairchild Stratos Corp. v. Lear Siegler, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
337 F.2d 785 (1964)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The Hufford division of Lear Siegler, Inc. (Hufford) (defendant) contracted to make a sophisticated press machine for Fairchild Stratos Corporation (Fairchild) (plaintiff) to use in making pleasure-boat hulls. Unbeknownst to Hufford, Fairchild also contemplated other uses for the press. Hufford missed the July 1960 contractual deadline. When Hufford delivered the press in September 1960, the press did not work. Hufford promised to correct the problem by April 7, 1961. Fairchild did not hold Hufford to that date but set a final and absolute deadline of June 1, 1961. However, before that date arrived, Fairchild decided it could not use the press for other products, as previously contemplated, and privately decided to back out of the contract. When Hufford missed the June 1 deadline by a few days, Fairchild rescinded the contract and sued Hufford. The federal district court ruled that Hufford was in material breach of the contract as of June 1, 1961. The first part of the court’s award of damages covered Fairchild’s contract-related expenses. The second part allowed Fairchild to recover the expenses it paid to settle lawsuits filed by disappointed boat vendors. Hufford appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.