Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

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

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


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


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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial