Mantaline Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
2000 WL 799337 (2000)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) (defendant) solicited a price quotation for window gaskets from Mantaline Corp. (plaintiff). Mantaline sent a quotation on its standard form that stated that any order placed in response would be deemed an acceptance of the terms contained in the quotation and on the reverse side. The reverse side stated that the proposal was subject to change before Mantaline accepted any orders and Mantaline’s acceptance of orders was to be signed by a Mantaline representative. The purchase order PPG sent in response stated that it was conditioned on the supplier’s assent to any terms additional to or different from those in the supplier’s quotation and the supplier’s assent would be manifested by delivery of the goods. The reverse side stated that the seller agreed to binding arbitration for the resolution of disputes. Mantaline shipped the gaskets without adding or disclaiming any terms. The gaskets leached damaging sulphur, and PPG commenced arbitration proceedings. Mantaline filed an action to enjoin the arbitration, claiming that the contract had no arbitration provision. PPG moved to dismiss or stay the action and compel arbitration. The district court granted summary judgment to Mantaline, finding that the arbitration clause was not part of the contract between the parties. PPG appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
Dissent (Siler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
