Weber Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. Plasan Carbon Composites, Inc.
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
2016 WL 4073545 (2016)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Plasan Carbon Composites, Inc. (plaintiff) entered a contract to purchase tools from Weber Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (defendant). A dispute arose about the contract. As part of this dispute, Plasan claimed that that certain statements on Weber’s website had created express warranties about the promised tools (that Weber had allegedly breached). Examples of these statements included: (1) “Weber . . . is committed to producing high quality tools that meet or exceed all customer requirements;” (2) “. . . we provide total customer satisfaction through every stage of the project;” (3) “We are committed to achieving total customer satisfaction in all aspects of our business;” (4) “[we] hold ourselves to the highest standards for superior quality, well-designed and constructed products, state of the art technology, on-time delivery, and word-class value;” and (5) “Certified dimensional accuracy is critical on all of our projects. Every tool we supply is fully inspected, using one of our in-house CMM machines. All critical mold features are checked to customer supplied CAD part data. Comprehensive inspection reports are provided to satisfy a wide variety of customer specifications.” Weber denied that these website statements had created any express warranty and moved to exclude any evidence of them.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
