У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:
Если кнопки скачивания не
загрузились
НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу
страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp. | 794 F.2d 1440 (1986) When faulty steel tubing in a refrigeration unit caused the loss of most of the fruit in a warehouse, the refrigeration company sued its tubing supplier. The question in Diamond Fruit Growers versus Krack was whether the company was bound by the disclaimer of liability in the supplier’s form contract. Krack Corporation manufactured cooling units. For the past ten years, it had purchased steel tubing from Metal-Matic. Every year, Krack would send a blanket purchase order to Metal-Matic stating how much tubing it would need. It would then send release purchase orders throughout the year, requesting that Metal-Matic ship specified amounts of tubing. Metal-Matic responded to these purchase orders with an acknowledgement form and a shipment of tubing. The front of the acknowledgement form stated, quote, “See reverse side for terms and conditions of sale,” unquote. The back of the form contained a disclaimer of all liability for consequential damages, and limited Metal-Matic’s liability for defects in tubing to the refund of the purchase price or replacement or repair of the defective part. Krack had objected to these terms on occasion, but Metal-Matic refused to change them, and Krack continued to do business as usual. In 1981, Krack sold a cooling unit to Diamond Fruit Growers. Diamond installed the unit in a climate-controlled warehouse. In 1982, the unit leaked ammonia from a tiny hole in a cooling coil made of steel tubing. A large amount of fruit went bad. Diamond sued Krack in federal district court for the value of the lost fruit. Krack sued Metal-Matic, seeking contribution. The jury found for Diamond against Krack, and that Krack was entitled to a 30-percent contribution from Metal-Matic. Metal-Matic appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/diamond... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/diamond... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries