Interform Co. v. Mitchell

575 F.2d 1270 (1978)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Interform Co. v. Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
575 F.2d 1270 (1978)

Facts

Mitchell Construction Company (Mitchell) (defendant) used certain forms belonging to Interform Company (Interform) (plaintiff) for molding concrete on two construction jobs. Mitchell and Interform entered into negotiations in summer 1971 regarding Mitchell’s potential rental of the forms. On September 8, 1971, before either of Mitchell’s construction jobs began, Mitchell spoke with Miller, and Interform salesman, and stated that he wanted to purchase Interform’s forms. Miller believed Mitchell was joking because all discussions between the parties up to that point involved Mitchell’s desire to rent the forms. Later on September 8th, Mitchell sent a purchase order to Interform requesting that Interform “furnish” forms to Mitchell. Mitchell later engaged in a phone conversation with Dashew, Interform’s president, during which a rental agreement as to quantity and price of forms was reached. Interform then sent three bills of lading and three invoices to Mitchell. These six documents specifically referred to Mitchell’s “rental” of the forms. Mitchell did not object to the language on these forms. Later, Mitchell paid $32,000 to Interform for its use of the forms. Mitchell stated that this fee was the purchase price for forms. Interform, however, stated that this was the rental fee for its forms for Mitchell’s first construction job, and that it was entitled to damages based on Mitchell’s use of the forms in a second construction job. Interform brought suit in federal district court against Interform seeking damages and an acknowledgement of its ownership of the forms. The trial court held that the agreement between Mitchell and Interform was for the rental by Mitchell of Interform’s forms. The trial court awarded damages to Interform, and Mitchell appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sneed, C.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 743,000 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 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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 743,000 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
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 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