Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Northrop Corporation v. Litronic Industries

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
29 F.3d 1173 (1994)


Facts

Litronic Industries (Litronic) (defendant) sent a written offer to Northrop Corporation (Northrop) (plaintiff) to sell Northrop printed wire boards. The offer contained a 90-day warranty on the boards. Northrop informed Litronic by phone that it accepted the offer and would send Litronic a formal purchase order. Based on previous business with Northrop, Litronic was familiar with Northrop’s purchase order form, which provided for a warranty that contained no time limit. Northrop received the boards but did not complete its testing of the boards until six months later. Northrop returned the boards to Litronic, claiming they were defective. Litronic refused to accept the returned boards because its 90-day warranty had lapsed. Northrop claimed it had an unlimited warranty under the terms of its purchase order. Northrop brought a diversity suit against Litronic. The magistrate judge eliminated both Northrop and Litronic’s warranty terms and applied Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-309, which provides that nonconforming goods may be rejected within a reasonable time, and held that Northrop rejected the boards within a reasonable time because of the complexity of Northrop’s testing. Litronic appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.