Kingston Pipe Industries v. Champlain Sprinkler
Vermont Supreme Court
857 A.2d 767 (2004)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Kingston Pipe Industries, Inc. (Kingston) (plaintiff) delivered sprinkler pipes to Champlain Sprinkler, Inc. (Champlain) (defendant). When Champlain discovered that the pipes were defective but that timely replacements were unavailable from other suppliers, Champlain notified Kingston that Champlain would accept the pipes but deduct the cost of making necessary repairs. The repairs proved to be unexpectedly troublesome. Champlain presented Kingston with an itemized bill showing that the repair costs offset whatever Champlain owed Kingston for the pipes. Kingston sued Champlain under Vermont’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The trial court ruled that because Champlain knowingly accepted Kingston’s defective pipes, UCC § 2-607 entitled Kingston to collect the full contract price for the pipes. The court also ruled that Champlain failed to meet procedural rules for pleading offsetting damages for the pipes’ defects. Champlain appealed the trial court’s summary judgment for Kingston to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Amestoy, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
