U.S. Nonwovens Corp. v. Pack Line Corp.

4 N.Y.S.3d 868 (2015)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

U.S. Nonwovens Corp. v. Pack Line Corp.

New York Supreme Court
4 N.Y.S.3d 868 (2015)

Facts

U.S. Nonwovens Corporation (Nonwovens) (plaintiff) contracted with Pack Line Corporation and Nuspark Engineering, Inc. (Nuspark) (defendants) to purchase a machine. The contract required the installation of the machine into Nonwovens’s facility. The machine was delivered to Nonwovens in December 2009; installation was completed in August 2010. According to Nonwovens, Pack Line discovered that the machine was defective upon completing installation. Nonwovens further asserted that it immediately complained about the defective machine to both Pack Line and Nuspark. Nonwovens sued Pack Line and Nuspark, asserting claims under New York law for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. Nonwovens did not assert claims under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Nuspark moved to dismiss Nonwovens’s complaint, arguing that (1) Nonwovens’s state-law claims were preempted by the CISG, (2) the CISG barred Nonwovens’s claims because Nonwovens did not plead that it notified Nuspark about the machine’s alleged defects before suing, and (3) Nonwovens’s contract claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the statute commenced when the machine was delivered in December 2009. Nonwovens conceded that the CISG applied and preempted New York law but argued that it adequately pleaded its contract claims under New York law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and that the CISG’s substantive requirements for such claims were substantively the same. Nonwovens further contended that it adequately pleaded that it notified Nuspark about the machine’s defects because its complaint alleged that it notified Nuspark and Pack Line about the defects immediately after delivery and that its contract claims were timely because the limitations clock did not commence until the machine was fully installed in August 2010.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pines, 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 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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