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

Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
190 F.3d 252 (1999)


Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc.

Facts

Rum bottler Destileria Serralles, Inc. (defendant), contracted with Figgie International, Inc. (plaintiff), to provide bottle-labelling equipment. The equipment never worked properly, despite Figgie’s repeated attempts to repair it. After nine months, Serralles returned the equipment, and Figgie refunded the purchase price, but Serralles wanted to recover the losses caused by the equipment failure and delay in obtaining an alternative, in addition to the refund. Figgie sued, requesting a declaration that both the contract terms and trade usages in the bottle-labelling industry limited Serralles’s remedy to repair, refund, or replacement. Because Figgie lost its copy of the contract during a reorganization, it relied on standard terms and conditions that purportedly accompanied every sales contract that Serralles entered at the time. Serralles produced its copy of the agreement, with the last page referencing “additional general terms and conditions of sale printed on the reverse hereof,” but the back of the page was blank. Figgie claimed that the blank page was a copying error but conceded that a factual dispute remained as to whether the written standards and conditions accompanied the contract. In the alternative, Figgie argued that the bottle-labelling industry always limited the buyer’s remedy to repair, replacement, or refund. Several people experienced in the industry submitted affidavits supporting Figgie’s position. The trial court granted summary judgment for Figgie. Serralles brought an appeal disputing the trade usage and arguing that the breach entitled it to all the remedies available under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC.), including consequential losses caused by the equipment failure.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Traxler, 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 499,000 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 499,000 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