Plaintiff decided to file suit, under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (USC), the plaintiff claim that there was a breach of an express warranty by the defendant. The acquired good did not perform. A Jury in the state of Kansas found in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant appeals the decision. Facts: Transoceanic 011 Corporation is looking to recover damages done by Baker International Corporation and its subsidiary, Lines Inc for the breach of an express warranty. Transoceanic Is In the business of drilling and completing OLL and gas wells.
They claimed that the Injection packers that they brought from Lines, Inc failed o performed properly. The jury consider that the plaintiff should receive damages because it was a breach of contract, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in satisfactory condition.
Lines Inc. Is maintaining that the action is barred by the statute of limitation and that Transoceanic expressly agreed to a limitation of liability and a limitation of remedies. Issues: What is the appropriate statute of limitations under the Kansas uniform Commercial Code (USC)?
Did the disclaimers of warranties and limitation of remedies In Invoices accompanying shipments of equipment affect the case? Answer/Holding: The trial court neglect to accurately Instruct the Jury on the damages Involved. The appellate court sent back the case to the trial court for further actions “Reversed and remanded”. Reasoning: 1 .
Defendants assert that plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations. A. The Kansas statute of limitations generally applicable to suits on oral contracts is three years. Sank. Stats.
S 60-512. For actions brought pursuant to the LLC, however, the statute of limitations is four years. Old. 84-2-725 If S 60-512 applies to the instant case, plaintiffs claims are barred; if S 84-2-725 applies, plaintiffs claims are imply.
The defendant relied on a case between Millers v. Williams. The cases were regarding the rental of equipment instead of the sale of equipment. Being that this case involves the sale of goods, Sank. Stats.
Ann. 84-2-102, 84-2-105, and 84-2-106. Therefore, the Code’s four-year statute of Limitations applies. . The Plaintiff also filed a cult against the defendant for breach of express warranty under the Kansas Law.
A. Sank. Stats. Ann. 84-2-313 says that any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the or promise.
The defendant argues that the advertising and oral conversation with the plaintiff was opinions of the seller and no express warranty was formed. B. Topeka Mill & Elevator co. V. Triplett, 168 Sank. 428, 435, 213 P.
Ad 964, 969 (1950).
Which Brown testified that Spencer “assured” him that the production injection packers were suitable for use as permanent completion devices in open holes. This testimony, if believed, is sufficient to support a finding of an express warranty. Behemoth v. Fox, Plus the defendants’ advertisements stated that the production injection packer was designed for permanent use in open holes. Under Kansas law, advertising may form a part of an express warranty.
Therefore the trial court did not make a mistake in presenting the issue of express warranty to the Jury unless language in the invoices disclaiming all express warranties was effective. . The courts shed light on the express warranty stating that USC S 84-2-316(1) is designed to protect a buyers “from unexpected and unbraided language of disclaimer by denying effect to such language when inconsistent with language of express warranty’. The court used Young & Cooper, Inc. V.
Vesting as a case point. However, n S 84-2-202 when a writing is intended by both parties, as in a signed invoice, a final expression of agreement is entered into. In Jordan v. Donna Truck & Equipment, Inc. The court refused to admit evidence of express warranty when both parties had read and signed a sales contract containing a disclaimer.
King v. Horizon Corp.. , the court may reverse the trial court’s decision only if clearly flawed. Both parties presented the express warranty issue properly and the warranty disclaimer language on or within the invoices was excluded from evidence the Jury was instructed to determine only if the advertising and oral statements made by the defendant constituted an express warranty. 3.
Defendant also claimed that the plaintiff expressly agreed to a limitation and a limitation of remedies by signing the invoices. A. K. S. A. S 84-2-316(4), and 84-2-718 govern limitations of remedies.
Section 84-2-719 states that “… Parties by contract may limit the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts unless the limitation is unconscionable”. The Willie v. Southwestern Bell Telephone cases was mentioned to clarify the unconscionably.
This case served as a purpose test for assigning undetermined risk. Consequently, the court disagree that the limitation of damages is unconscionable since the limitation of remedies is clearly defined. . In this case, the defendants were barred from presenting evidence that plaintiffs had expressly agreed to a limitation of liability. In particular was the exclusion of relevant invoices, one of which was signed by Mr.
. Brown, the plaintiffs president. By agreeing to the terms and conditions on the invoice, Mr.. Brown gave legitimacy to all other invoices through course of dealing. Moreover, under S 84-1-201 (3) usage of trade is a ending term of agreement; therefore, a limited remedy for breach of warranty was enforceable.
In short, the Jury was entitled to see the invoices as a part of due diligence in assessing the case and the defendant’s were also allowed to present evidence regarding trade usage that, if understood, would limit the plaintiffs remedy. A new trial should be set limited to damages only.