Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Polytek Engineering Company, Limited v. Jacobson Companies

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
984 F. Supp. 1238 (1997)


Polytek Engineering Co., Ltd. (Polytek) (plaintiff) negotiated with Jacobson, Inc. (Jacobson) (defendant) to purchase rubber-recycling equipment. Polytek was simultaneously in negotiations for the sale of the equipment to Hebei Import & Export Corp. (Hebei), to occur after the equipment was purchased from Jacobson. Polytek and Jacobson waited to enter an agreement until the contract between Polytek and Hebei was finalized. In February 1993, Jacobson sent a message to Polytek stating that it expected the Hebei contract to be attached to the purchase order that Polytek was to send to Jacobson for the equipment purchase. In May 1993, Polytek sent a purchase order to Jacobson with the Hebei contract attached. The purchase order incorporated the terms of the Hebei contract, and the Hebei contract contained an arbitration clause setting the forum in the Chinese International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). After receiving the purchase order, Jacobson refused to agree to a provision in the Hebei contract requiring a letter of credit be issued to Polytek, but Jacobson agreed to different letter-of-credit terms. The equipment was delivered to Hebei, but Hebei sued Polytek, claiming the equipment did not meet the agreed-upon specifications. Hebei was awarded damages from Polytek. Polytek then sought recovery against Jacobson for breaching the Hebei contract incorporated in the purchase order. Polytek was granted an award in an arbitration action by the CIETAC. Polytek then sued in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to have the Chinese arbitration award confirmed under the Federal Arbitration Act. Jacobson claimed that it never agreed to arbitrate disputes with Polytek.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rosenbaum, 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 458,000 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 458,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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