Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
825 F.3d 453 (2016)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Lincoln Composites, Inc. (plaintiff) bought defective tubing from Firetrace USA, LLC (defendant). Firetrace repeatedly tried but failed to fix the defect. After 18 months, Lincoln demanded a refund. Firetrace refused, citing the limited repair-or-replace warranty in its contract. Lincoln sued, asserting that Lincoln’s purchase orders referenced terms on its website that did not limit its remedies, and that the repair-and-replace warranty had failed its essential purpose. Lincoln’s experts testified that the remaining tubing would continue to fail. Firetrace requested a jury instruction with specific language about when a repair-or-replacement remedy fails its essential purpose but did not object when the court gave a more general instruction that it was up to the jury to decide how many attempts and a how long a seller should have to fix a defect before a repair-or-replace warranty failed. After the jury awarded Lincoln $900,000, Firetrace requested a new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict, the jury improperly found that Lincoln’s terms controlled, and the court should have given Firetrace’s requested jury instruction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
