National Eastern Corp. v. Vegas Fastener MFG
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
59 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 330 (2006)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
National Eastern Corp. (National) (plaintiff) needed to supply steel for a construction project that it was working on as a subcontractor. To facilitate this, National purchased steel from Vegas Fastener MFG (Vegas) (defendant). The contract called for Type 316 steel, which was a requirement for the construction project. Vegas issued two certificates to National confirming that the steel was of this type. Eventually, after the construction project was completed, it was discovered that the steel was not Type 316, but rather Type 304. The steel corroded, and the general contractor for the project had to replace it. After bearing the costs, the general contractor sued National seeking to recover the amount it was forced to spend replacing the steel. An arbitrator determined this amount to be $98,146. National then brought suit against Vegas for breach of contract and filed a motion for summary judgment. Vegas argued that the question of whether National notified it immediately upon discovery of the nonconformity was a question of fact, not of law. Vegas also argued that, under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-608, National could only recover damages if it showed that the nonconformity substantially impaired the value of the goods, which, Vegas maintained, National did not show.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Arterton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
