Linc Equipment Services v. Signal Medical Services
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
319 F.3d 288 (2003)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Signal Medical Services, Inc. (Signal) (defendant) leased a magnetic resonance imager (MRI) from Linc Equipment Services, Inc. (Linc) (plaintiff) for $30,000 per month. Signal and Linc were both merchants in the business of renting medical equipment. The lease for the MRI excluded consequential damages in any action brought by Signal, but not in actions brought by Linc. The MRI’s magnet was damaged when the machine was returned to Linc. The MRI was out of service for 10 months while it was repaired. Linc later sold the repaired MRI for $475,000. Linc sued Signal and the firm that transported the MRI, seeking, among other things, $300,000 in lost rental income for the 10 months that Linc was unable to rent out the MRI. The district court found that Illinois law allowed consequential damages to be awarded only if the contracting parties “expressly contemplated” such damages and held that, because Signal and Linc did not discuss or consider such damages when entering into the lease, the consequential damages of lost rental income could not be awarded against Signal. Linc appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.