Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc.

401 F.3d 901 (2003)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
401 F.3d 901 (2003)

Facts

Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co. (Marvin) (plaintiff) manufactured wooden doors and windows. PPG Industries (PPG) (defendant) sold wood preservatives and coating. For many years, Marvin had successfully been using the industry-standard preservative. PPG created a new preservative, which replaced the industry-standard. Marvin thus began using PPG’s preservative. PPG sent Marvin acknowledgments of Marvin’s purchase orders. On the face of the acknowledgment, PPG stated that it accepted Marvin’s orders with the understanding that the only terms to which it consented were set forth in the acknowledgement. There was a signature line directly below this statement, but it was unsigned. The back of the acknowledgment, in fine print, stated that PPG’s liability for damages would not exceed Marvin’s purchase price. Marvin filed suit several years after purchasing PPG’s preservative, claiming that the preservative had failed to prevent premature rot and decay in Marvin’s wood products. At trial, the jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that the warranty was incorporated into their agreement. The jury also found that the warranty was breached and awarded Marvin a large sum for out-of-pocket costs, past lost profits, future lost profits, and loss of goodwill. The trial court entered a judgment of over $156 million for Marvin. PPG appealed, arguing that the term in the contract limiting damages controlled. According to PPG, Marvin could collect damages only for the price it paid for the preservative—$1.6 million. Marvin argued that the damages limitation was a material alteration to the contract for purchase and sale. Marvin officials testified that they were surprised that such a limitation could have become part of the contract. The appeal was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, 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 745,000 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 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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 745,000 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
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 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