Microsoft Corporation v. Logical Choice Computers, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 727 (2000)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Logical Choice Computers, Inc. (Logical) (defendant), a company in the business of assembling and selling computer systems, sold counterfeit Microsoft software on two separate occasions. Logical purchased the counterfeit software from two software companies, Acecom, Inc. (defendant) and Software & More, Inc. (defendant). Logical was sued by Microsoft Corporation (plaintiff), the maker of the software, for common-law unfair trade practices and federal infringement. Logical then brought third-party claims against Acecom and Software & More, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty against infringement, common-law fraud, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Logical claimed that the counterfeit software was represented as legitimate Microsoft software. Logical did not communicate with Acecom or Software & More regarding the software or its intention to bring a claim. Acecom moved to dismiss, arguing that Logical’s failure to provide notice, as required by Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-607(3)(a), precluded Logical from recovery. Logical argued that both defendants received notice through its submission of the third-party complaints.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pallmeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.