Zippertubing Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
757 F.2d 1401 (1985)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Nab Construction (Nab) was a general contractor working on a transit project. Zippertubing Co. (plaintiff) was negotiating to provide closeable insulation to Nab. Zippertubing arranged for Surf Chemical, Inc. (Surf) (plaintiff) to fabricate the material, and Surf requested a quotation from Teleflex Inc. (defendant) to supply some product. In the course of these arrangements, Zippertubing revealed to Teleflex that Nab was the general contractor. Teleflex bypassed Zippertubing and Surf and contracted with Nab directly. Zippertubing and Surf sued Teleflex for interference with prospective advantage. Zippertubing and Surf presented evidence of lost anticipated profits but did not prove the amount of lost profits; instead, they proved that Teleflex would have netted $715,000 if it had worked for Zippertubing but made a net profit of $2 million by directly contracting with Nab. The jury awarded Zippertubing and Surf $2 million in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, Teleflex argued that New Jersey did not recognize Zippertubing and Surf’s damages theory, the profits derived from products Teleflex supplied in addition to closeable insulation should not have been included in the damage award, and the punitive-damages award was duplicative and not supported by the evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
