In the Matter of Instruments for Industry v. United States

496 F.2d 1157 (1974)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In the Matter of Instruments for Industry v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
496 F.2d 1157 (1974)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Instruments for Industry (IFI) (plaintiff) delivered electronic countermeasure equipment to the Bureau of Naval Weapons of the Navy Department (government) (defendant) pursuant to a government contract. The government inspected and accepted IFI’s delivered goods. Within one year of delivery, the government notified IFI that the delivered equipment was defective and that IFI had to repay the government over $390,000 pursuant to the guaranty clause of IFI’s contract. The guaranty clause stated that (1) IFI guaranteed the delivered goods were free from defects at the time of delivery; and (2) if the government notified IFI of any defects within one year of delivery, then IFI would be required either to replace the defective products or to repay the government for the portion of the contract price allocated to the defective goods. IFI subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the government filed its $390,000 claim in IFI’s bankruptcy proceeding. IFI challenged the government’s claim, arguing that, under the inspection clause in IFI’s contract, the government was prohibited from seeking recovery for non-latent defects in goods the government had previously inspected and accepted. The inspection clause of IFI’s contract stated that the government’s acceptance of IFI’s goods was final absent latent defects, fraud, or gross mistake. The bankruptcy court allowed the government’s claim to proceed. IFI appealed, and the district court reversed, holding that the government’s right to recover was barred by the inspection clause because it did not allege latent defects, fraud, or gross mistake. The government appealed to the Second Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Davis, 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 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership