T & S Brass & Bronze Works, Inc. v. Pic-Air, Inc.

790 F.2d 1098 (1986)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

T & S Brass & Bronze Works, Inc. v. Pic-Air, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
790 F.2d 1098 (1986)

  • Written by Mike Begovic, JD

Facts

Pic-Air Inc. (defendant) produced faucet handles for T & S Brass & Bronze Works, Inc. (Brass) (plaintiff). To facilitate this, Pic-Air took possession of Brass’s tooling and kept it while fulfilling purchase orders. In February 1983, Brass purchased a large number of faucet handles, which were to be delivered in four installments. Brass notified Pic-Air that a large portion of handles in the third installment were scratched and requested return of the tooling. Pic-Air representatives inspected the handles at Brass’s facility, at which time Brass offered to sort through the handles at Pic-Air’s expense or, alternatively, to allow Pic-Air employees to do the sorting. Brass again demanded return of its tooling. Pic-Air informed Brass that the scratches did not warrant rejection and that it was not authorizing Brass to sort through the handles. Pic-Air asked Brass to return the handles that it thought were defective, but Pic-Air did not acknowledge that any of the handles were defective or offer to pay for the sorting costs. Brass declined this offer. Pic-Air eventually proposed that it would determine whether certain handles were defective and replace any that it deemed so. Neither the handles nor the tooling were ever returned. Brass filed an action for conversion against Pic-Air, and Pic-Air counterclaimed for the contract price of the three unpaid installments and the fourth installment that was never shipped. A magistrate found against Pic-Air on the conversion claim and against Brass for its failure to pay for the three shipped installments, with offsets for the costs of the defective handles and the sorting. Pic-Air appealed, arguing that Brass’s failure to return the handles constituted waiver and acceptance, thereby precluding an offset of the costs in the judgment against Brass.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Butzner, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership