This case, decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, involves a dispute between a Destileria Serralles, Inc. (“Serralles”), a bottler of rum, and Figgie International, Inc. (“Figgie”), a manufacturer of bottle-labeling equipment. Figgie could not provide bottle making equipment in a satisfactory way to Serralles, so Serralles received a refund after they returned the equipment. The question in this case was whether Serralles was limited to what was is referred to as "the...
This case, decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, involves a dispute between a Destileria Serralles, Inc. (“Serralles”), a bottler of rum, and Figgie International, Inc. (“Figgie”), a manufacturer of bottle-labeling equipment. Figgie could not provide bottle making equipment in a satisfactory way to Serralles, so Serralles received a refund after they returned the equipment. The question in this case was whether Serralles was limited to what was is referred to as "the exclusive remedy of repair, replacement, or return of the equipment." Serralles also wanted Figgie to pay for alleged losses that were incurred as a result of the bottle equipment that did not work.
In its decision, the court stated that Figgie had submitted several affadavits by people in the bottling industry to the effect that sellers in the industry limit remedies to the repair, replacement, or return of equipment and do not include other damages. In their decision, the court said that "Serralles asserts that it did not 'acquiesce' in this practice." The court does not define the precise meaning of the word "acquiesce," so it is ambiguous as to what Serralles meant by saying that they did not acquiesce in this situation. The reason it matters is that it is not clear whether Serralles agreed to this practice of limited damages or not. There are other examples of ambiguity you can find in the court's decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment