Mirion Technologies (Canberra), Inc. v. Sunpower, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
2017 WL 5090436 (2017)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
On June 16, 2017, Mirion Technologies (Canberra) Inc. (Mirion) (plaintiff) and Sunpower Inc. (Sunpower) (defendant) entered a supply agreement for Sunpower to supply Mirion with cryocoolers, devices used in geranium detectors. Geranium detectors were rare and required a particular type of cryocooler for them to perform as intended. The parent companies of the parties occupied the geranium-detector market equally. Sunpower manufactured the cryocoolers for detectors sold by its parent company, and Mirion used another supplier. Mirion entered the agreement with Sunpower hoping to phase out its existing supplier’s cryocoolers, which Mirion found unreliable. The agreement had options that allowed Mirion to utilize other suppliers if needed. Mirion discussed several alternative cryocoolers with different suppliers but preferred Sunpower’s. On June 29, Mirion submitted a purchase order for 250 cryocoolers. On June 30, after misgivings of Sunpower’s president, who did not participate in the negotiation or signing of the supply agreement, a Sunpower representative sent Mirion a notice of rejection. Sunpower later withdrew the notice of rejection but never filled Mirion’s purchase order. Mirion sued Sunpower, seeking specific performance of the supply agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Graham, 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.
