Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, Inc. v. Huntsman Propylene Oxide LLC
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
35 F.Supp. 3d 1316 (2014)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America, Inc. (TOK) (plaintiff) wanted to purchase propylene glycol from Huntsman Propylene Oxide LLC (Huntsman) (defendant). Huntsman made TOK fill out a credit application. The credit application included a provision limiting Huntsman’s liability to the purchase price and excluding consequential damages. TOK signed the credit application and spent two years testing Huntsman’s propylene. TOK concluded that Huntsman’s propylene, as currently manufactured, was satisfactory. Huntsman then signed TOK’s procurement specification, which required Huntsman to notify TOK about any changes to Huntsman’s manufacturing process. TOK began high-volume purchases of propylene. Huntsman changed the manufacturing process without notifying TOK, and the change caused a latent defect in the propylene. As a result, TOK suffered losses in the form of wasted chemicals and chemical-disposal expenses. TOK sued Huntsman for breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages. Huntsman argued that damages were limited to just the purchase price of the propylene, per the credit-application terms. TOK argued that Huntsman breached the procurement specification by failing to notify TOK of the manufacturing change.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.