Taylor v. Ramsay-Gerding Construction Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
196 P.3d 532 (2008)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Todd Taylor and his wife (plaintiffs) hired Ramsey-Gerding Construction Company (codefendant) to construct a hotel. Ramsey-Gerding hired a subcontractor to install stucco siding manufactured by ChemRex, Inc. (codefendant). After Taylor became concerned about possible rusting of the stucco fittings, construction was suspended. Taylor met with representatives from Ramsey-Gerding, and the stucco installer, as well as Mike Mcdonald, ChemRex’s territory manager for Oregon, to discuss the issue. At the meeting, McDonald stated that the stucco system was covered by a five-year warranty, which the stucco installer and Taylor asked for in writing. Following completion of construction, McDonald sent a letter on ChemRex letterhead, which he signed as Territory Manager, confirming the warranty. Thereafter, Taylor found rusted fittings in the stucco. Although Ramsey-Gerding and ChemRex were informed, the issue was never fixed. Taylor filed suit against Ramsey-Gerding, alleging breach of contract. Ramsey-Gerding brought a third-party breach of warranty complaint against ChemRex. The Taylors amended their complaint to add a breach-of-warranty claim. The claims went to a jury, and ChemRex moved for a directed verdict, arguing that a reasonable jury could not conclude that McDonald had authority to provide the warranty. The jury found that McDonald had apparent authority to provide the warranty, and that ChemRex breached the warranty. The court of appeals reversed. The Taylors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Balmer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.