Summary
The Tenth Circuit reviewed consolidated appeals arising from a dispute over allegedly defective machining centers and numerical controls. Applying Oklahoma law, the court held that General Electric's warranty disclaimer to Brown & Sharpe, which was not disclosed to Patty Precision, was not binding on Patty Precision and was improperly admitted into evidence and submitted to the jury. The court also addressed the denial of a new trial and an award of attorney fees to General Electric.
Holdings
- Under the applicable Oklahoma law, General Electric's disclaimer of implied warranties to Brown & Sharpe was not binding on Patty Precision because it was not disclosed or expressed in writing to Patty Precision and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for excluding or modifying implied warranties as against the ultimate purchaser.
- The district court erred by admitting evidence of General Electric's disclaimer to Brown & Sharpe and instructing the jury on that disclaimer because it was irrelevant and could mislead or prejudice the jury in deciding Patty Precision's claims.
- Patty Precision did not waive its challenge to the validity or admissibility of General Electric's disclaimer by introducing the machine-record notebooks.
Questions Presented
- Whether General Electric's disclaimer of implied warranties and limitation of remedies in its agreement with Brown & Sharpe was binding on Patty Precision, a subsequent purchaser that was not informed of the disclaimer.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of General Electric's disclaimer and instructing the jury concerning it.
- Whether Patty Precision waived its challenge to the disclaimer by introducing notebooks that apparently contained copies of the warranty statement.
- Whether the court needed to address Patty Precision's proposed increase of its ad damnum for interest paid on borrowed funds.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (29)
- Patty Precision Products Co. v. Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co., 742 F.2d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Whiteley v. OKC Corp., 719 F.2d 1051, 1058 (10th Cir. 1983)(followed)
- Karns v. Emerson Electric Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1456 (10th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Suggs v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 833 F.2d 883, 887 (10th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Trujillo v. Goodman, 825 F.2d 1453, 1461 (10th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 1537, 1549 (10th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Robinson v. Audi NSU Auto Union, 739 F.2d 1481, 1486 (10th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Duflinger v. Artiles, 727 F.2d 888, 895 (10th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Alloy International Co. v. Hoover-NSK Bearing Co., 635 F.2d 1222, 1226–27 (7th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Perry v. Lawson Ford Tractor Co., 613 P.2d 458, 463 (Okla. 1980)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 29.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…