Pro-Mold v. ESI Extrusion Services
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Having determined that ESIs Terms and Conditions are a controlling part of the contract between Pro-Mold and ESI, the court GRANTS ESIs motion for summary judgm ent. Therefore, any award of damages to Pro-Mold under the first two causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are limited to the amount of the purchase price of the equipment according to E SIs general contract warranty. Pro-Molds third cause of action for breach of implied warranties is precluded by the contract and are therefore DISMISSED. Finally, Pro-Molds fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action for misprepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment are preempted by the courts holding on the first three contract claims and are consequently DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 7/8/13. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
PRO-MOLD, INC., a Utah corporation
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
vs.
ESI EXTRUSION SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:11-CV-00145
Defendant,
This matter is before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment filed by
defendant ESI Extrusion Services, Inc. (“ESI”). (Dkt. No. 33, Def.s Mot. for Partial Summ. J.)
A hearing on the motion was held on May 28, 2013. Plaintiff Pro-Mold, Inc. (“Pro-Mold”) was
represented by Mica McKinney and Greg S. Ericksen. Defendant ESI was represented by Sam
Meziani and Spencer H. Reed. Before the hearing, the court considered briefs and memoranda
submitted by the parties. Since taking the motion under advisement, the court has further
considered the law and facts relating to the motion. Now, being fully advised, the court issues
the following Memorandum Opinion and Order.
BACKGROUND
Pro-Mold is a Utah corporation that manufactures sprinkler irrigation products. (Dkt. No.
1
1, Compl. at ¶2.) ESI Extrusion Services, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which designs,
manufactures, and fabricates automated machines. (Id. at ¶¶6-8.) In 2009, Pro-Mold and ESI
negotiated an agreement for ESI to design, fabricate, sell, and deliver an automated machine for
Pro-Mold. The parties agreed that the machine would cut and roll plastic pipe into coils of
predetermined lengths and place strapping around the coiled pipe. (Id. at ¶¶14.) On August 17,
2009, ESI submitted an offer to Pro-Mold in the form of a revised quote which stated that ESI
would provide Pro-Mold with a machine that would cut, roll, and secure certain types of pipe at
a specified rate. (Id. at ¶16; Dkt. No. 31, Second Decl. of Declan J Smith, Ex. A, Revised
Quotation #09-10014C (the “Quote”).) The purchase price for the machine was to be
$142,900.00. (Compl. at ¶17; Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith, Ex. A, Quote.) The Quote also
stated that ESI would provide a piece of equipment called a 3" x 36" MD, Servo Driven, Smooth
Belt Puller and Pneumatic Feed Belt Actuation for a purchase price of $24,975.00. (Compl. at
¶19; Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith, Ex. A, Quote.)
Pro-Mold received the Quote by email. (Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith at ¶8 & Ex. A,
Quote.) ESI customarily provides purchasers with a quote which includes ESI’s Standard Terms
and Conditions of Sale (“Terms and Conditions”) printed on the reverse side of the final page.
(Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith at ¶7.) ESI’s Terms and Conditions exclude claims for
damages beyond the purchase price and various types of warranties.1 However, when a customer
1
The portions of the Terms and Conditions relevant to this suit are found in sections 2
and 7 of the Terms and Conditions and read as follows:
2)....Any terms or conditions appearing on the Buyer’s purchase order or other form
which are inconsistent with, or modification of, or in addition to these STANDARD
TERMS AND CONDITIONS, shall not be binding on the Seller and shall not apply to this
sale....
2
wants a quote delivered by email, it is ESI’s regular practice to send the quote as two
attachments to a single email. The first attachment includes specific provisions to the individual
quote and a statement on the final page, under the heading “TERMS,” which reads: “NOTE: See
other side for additional terms and conditions of sale.” (Id.) The second attachment is clearly
labeled “ESITermsAndConditionsofSale.doc.” (Id.) ESI followed this protocol when it sent the
Quote to Pro-Mold, sending the email with two attachments as described above. (Second Decl.
of Declan J. Smith at ¶8 & Ex. A, Quote.)
Pro-Mold responded to the Quote by issuing a purchase order in the amount of
$167,875.00. (Compl. at ¶19 & Ex. B, Purchase Order.) The purchase order included text which
stated that the purchase order was issued “as per quote #09-10014C.” (Def.’s Mot. for Partial
Summ. J. at 8; Compl., Ex. B, Purchase Order.) The purchase order also included, in fine print,
the statement: “This Purchase order and supply of goods pursuant hereto is to be strictly in
7)....The foregoing warranty is in lieu of all other representations or warranties of ESIExtrusion Services, Inc., it being recognized and agreed that THERE ARE NO OTHER
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT ABILITY
[sic] OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, applicable to the goods or
services of ESI-Extrusion Services, Inc. to be provided hereunder....IN NO EVENT shall
ESI-Extrustion Services, Inc. be liable to customer or any party claiming through
customer for any consequential, incidental or other damages of any kind arising from or
relating to the goods or services of ESI - Extrusion services, Inc. hereunder or any delay
in providing any such goods or services, it being understood and agreed that the sole and
exclusive remedy of customer for any default of ESI-Extrusion Services, Inc. shall be the
repair, replacement or correction of defective goods or services under the foregoing
Warranty. If, however, defects in the goods or services of ESI- Extrusion Services, Inc.
hereunder cannot be remedied by such repair, replacement or correction, the
responsibility of ESI-Extrusion Services, Inc. to customer shall in no event exceed the
purchase price of such goods or services.
3
accordance with the terms and conditions printed hereon and on the reverse side hereof, all of
which are made an integrate part hereof.” (Compl., Ex, B, Purchase Order.) However, Pro-Mold
did not provide the reverse side of the page, which was to have included Pro-Mold’s terms and
conditions. Along with the purchase order, Pro-Mold issued a check to ESI in the amount of
$58,756.25 (35% of the purchase price) as the down payment for the two machines pursuant to
the Quote. (Compl. at ¶20; Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith, Ex. A, Quote.)
Under the parties’ contract, the automatic coiler machine and smooth belt puller were due
for shipment by ESI to Pro-Mold on or before December 11, 2009. (Compl. at ¶24.) On February
16, 2010, Pro-Mold received the equipment referred to in the purchase order, two months after
the agreed-upon date. (Id. at ¶26.) Once delivered, the automated coiler machine did not function
as contemplated in the contract. It failed to function at the speed agreed upon by the parties and
periodically broke down. (Id. at ¶31.) Despite the work of technicians sent by ESI to Utah and
the re-fabrication and replacement of key portions of the machine, the automated coiler failed to
consistently operate pursuant to the specifications outlined in the quote. (Id. at ¶¶30-33.)
Pro-Mold ultimately filed suit against ESI on September 21, 2011. (See Compl.) ProMold’s complaint raises six claims for relief: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of implied warranties, (4) misrepresentation,
(5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment. (Id. at ¶¶35-65.) ESI filed this motion for partial
summary judgment on February 11, 2013. (See Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J.)
DISCUSSION
4
Summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is genuine only if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit in light of
the substantive law. Id. ESI contends that no such genuine issue of material fact remains in this
case and that its motion for summary judgment should therefore be granted.
I.
THE CONTRACT
Because ESI contends that Pro-Mold’s first three claims—for breach of contract, breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of implied warranties—are limited
or precluded by ESI’s Terms and Conditions, the first question to be addressed by the court is
whether the Terms and Conditions control the contract between the parties. While both parties
agree that they entered a contract for the manufacture of the extrusion and puller equipment
(Mot. for Partial Summ. J at at 3; Dkt. No. 37, Pro-Mold’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Partial
Summ. J at 1), the parties disagree on whether the ESI’s Terms and Conditions govern that
contract. Particularly, Pro-Mold argues that the Terms and Conditions are not a controlling part
of the contract for three reasons: (1) the Terms and Conditions were not part of the quote, but
rather were sent in a separate and distinct document, and therefore were not included in ESI’s
offer accepted by Pro-Mold; (2) the Terms and Conditions were not properly incorporated by
reference into the Quote, and were therefore not part of ESI’s offer accepted by Pro-Mold; and
5
(3) even if the Terms and Conditions were a part of the Quote, or incorporated into it by
reference, the parties did not agree that the Terms and Conditions governed the contract. Each of
these arguments will be discussed below.
A. The Terms and Conditions Were Not in a Separate and Distinct Document and
Were Therefore Part of the Quote
While ESI contends that the Terms and Conditions were included in the Quote, Pro-Mold
contends that they were contained in a separate and distinct document and, therefore, were not a
part of ESI’s offer. In light of the undisputed facts, the court holds that no reasonable jury could
find that the Terms and Conditions were not a part of the Quote.
The parties stipulate that ESI’s Quote was an offer. (Compl. at ¶16; Def.’s Mot. for
Summ. J. at 7.) As explained above, ESI sent the Quote to Pro-Mold as two attachments to a
single email. The third and final page of the first attachment contained a section clearly entitled
“TERMS.” (Second Decl. of Declan J Smith, Ex. A, Quote.) Within that section, after
discussion of such items as terms of payment and shipment, the section included the statement
“NOTE: See other side for additional terms and conditions of sale.” (Id.) The second attachment,
entitled “ESITermsAndConditionsofSale.doc” included a digital copy of the terms and
conditions that would have been on the reverse side of a hard-copy version of the Quote.
(Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith at ¶7 & Ex. A, Revised Quotation.) The document in the
second attachment, once opened, featured the heading “TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE.”
(Second Decl. of Declan J Smith, Ex. A, Quote.)
The court finds that no reasonable jury would suppose that the second attachment
containing the Terms and Conditions was not clearly intended to be a part of the Quote. The
6
email transmitting the quote contained two attachments. While Pro-Mold argues that only the
document in the first attachment should be considered the Quote, the fact that the final page of
that document instructed the reader to see the reverse side of the page to see further terms and
conditions of sale indicated to Pro-Mold that the Quote contained further provisions. Because
electronic documents do not have reverse sides, it is reasonable that those conditions would be
sent in a second attachment to the same email, as they were. Furthermore, the fact that the
second attachment was entitled “ESITermsAndConditionsofSale.doc” makes it even more clear
that the Terms and Conditions were a part of the Quote. No reasonable jury could suppose
otherwise.
B. Even if the Terms and Conditions Were in a Separate and Distinct Document, the
Terms and Conditions are Incorporated By Reference
Even if a reasonable jury could suppose that the Terms and Conditions in the second
attachment to the email containing the Quote were not considered to be a part of the Quote, the
Quote incorporates the Terms and Conditions by reference such that they are a controlling part of
the contract. “[P]arties may incorporate the terms of another document by reference in to their
contract” provided that the reference meets three requirements. See Housing Auth. v. Snyder, 44
P.3d 724, 729 (Utah 2002) (citations omitted); Consolidated Realty Group v. Sizzling Platter, Inc.,
930 P.2d 268, 273 (Utah App. 1996); 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 402. First, the incorporation of outside
material must be “clear and unequivocal” using “specific language” that “alert[s] the non-drafting
party that terms from another document are being incorporated.” Housing Auth. v. Snyder, 44 P.3d
at 729; see also 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 402. Second, the incorporated material must be “must be
known or easily available to the contracting parties.” Sizzling Platter, Inc., 930 P.2d at 273; see also
7
17A C.J.S. Contracts § 402. Finally, the party being alerted to the incorporated writing must
“consent thereto.” Id.; see also 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 402 (stating “[f]or an incorporation by
reference to be effective, it must be clear that the parties to the agreement...assented to the
incorporated terms”).
The court finds that even if the email’s second attachment is not technically considered
part of the Quote, the Quote satisfies the necessary requirements to incorporate the Terms and
Conditions by reference. ESI’s quote satisfies the first requirement for incorporation by
reference since the special note in the “TERMS” section on the third page of the first attachment,
which reads, “ NOTE: See other side for additional terms and conditions of sale,” clearly and
unequivocally refers to the attachment containing the Terms and Conditions. Even though the
Terms and Conditions were not on the reverse side of the electronic document (because
electronic documents cannot have reverse sides), the language is a clear reference to the second
attachment entitled “ESITermsAndConditionsofSale.doc,” which included the Terms and
Conditions to which the special note referred. Therefore, ESI used specific language to clearly
and unequivocally alert Pro-Mold—the non-drafting party—that the Terms and Conditions
contained in the second attachment were being incorporated into the Quote. See Housing Auth.
v. Snyder, 44 P.3d at 729.
The Quote satisfies the second requirement for incorporating the Terms and Conditions
because the Terms and Conditions were easily available and known to Pro-Mold, since they
were attached to the same email as the Quote. See Sizzling Platter, 930 P.2d at 273.
Finally, the Quote satisfies the third requirement since the terms were consented to by
8
Pro-Mold according to the rules governing acceptance found in the Uniform Commercial Code,
which governs contracts for the sale of goods. Section 2-206(1)(a) of the U.C.C. provides that
“[a]n offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by
any medium reasonable in the circumstances.” See also, Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-206. The
parties have stipulated that the Quote constituted such an offer. (Compl. at ¶16; Def.’s Mot. for
Summ. J. at 7.) Section 2-207(1) of the U.C.C. states that an offer may be accepted by “[a]
definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent in a
reasonable time.” See also Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-207.
Pro-Mold executed a purchase order, expressly requesting items “as per quote #0910014C.” Because the Terms and Conditions were clearly and unequivocally referenced and
provided, Pro-Mold’s purchase order requesting the items “as per” the Quote is a definite written
confirmation of acceptance of, and consent to, ESI’s Quote, including its Terms and Conditions.
Because the purchase order and down payment were sent to ESI on the same day that ESI sent
the Quote with its Terms and Conditions, the written confirmation of acceptance was sent in a
reasonable time, as required by the U.C.C. and state law. See U.C.C. § 2-207(1); Utah Code
Ann. § 70A-2-206. Furthermore, the fact that Pro-Mold accompanied its purchase order with the
35% down payment required by the quote is a “seasonable expression of acceptance.” As will be
discussed below, Pro-Mold’s acceptance of ESI’s Quote was unequivocal, since Pro-Mold did
not offer any conflicting terms or objections. Thus, by accepting the offer as outlined in ESI’s
quote, which clearly referenced the Terms and Conditions in the second attachment to the email,
Pro-Mold consented to the incorporation of the Terms and Conditions.
9
Because the Terms and Conditions were (1) referenced clearly and unequivocally with
specific language alerting Pro-Mold to the incorporated terms, (2) known and easily available to
Pro-Mold, and (3) consented to by Pro-Mold, the Terms and Conditions were properly
incorporated by reference into the Quote and therefore control the contract, even if they are not
considered a part of the contract.
C. Pro-Mold Accepted ESI’s Offer, Including the Terms and Conditions without
Objecting or Offering Conflicting Forms.
Pro-Mold contends that, even if Terms and Conditions are a valid part of the Quote, or
incorporated into it by reference, they do not govern the contract because the contractual forms
exchanged between the parties—namely, the Quote and Pro-Mold’s purchase order—contain
conflicting terms. Pro-Mold cites the U.C.C. in support of its position, which states that when
“clauses on confirming forms sent by both parties conflict...each party must be assumed to object
to a clause of the other conflicting with one on the confirmation sent by himself.” U.C.C. § 2207, comment 6; Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-207, comment 6. When such conflicts occur, the
conflicting terms are considered objections pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-207(2) and “do not become a
part of the contract. U.C.C. § 2-207, comment 6; Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-207, comment 6.
Upon review of the forms exchanged between the parties, the court does not find any
conflicting provisions. It is true that Pro-Mold’s purchase order included a statement in fine print
stating, “[t]his Purchase order and supply of goods pursuant hereto is to be strictly in accordance
with the terms and conditions printed hereon and on the reverse side hereof, all of which are
made an integrate part hereof.” (Compl., Ex. B, Purchase Order.) However, Pro-Mold did not
send a copy of the reverse side of its purchase order to ESI until the commencement of this
10
litigation. (Dkt. No. 38, Def.’s Reply Mem.) As a result of Pro-Mold’s failure to send ESI its
own terms and conditions, there were, in fact, no conflicting terms to qualify as objections that
would exclude ESI’s Terms and Conditions from the contract. Furthermore, in Section 2 of the
Terms and Conditions, ESI addresses possible conflicting terms, stating that “[a]ny terms or
conditions appearing on Buyer’s purchase order or other form which are inconsistent with, or
modification of, or in addition to these STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS, shall not be
binding on the Seller and shall not apply to this sale.” (Second Decl. of Declan J. Smith, Ex. A.,
Quote.) Thus, ESI’s Terms and Conditions contained text explicitly precluding conflicting terms.
Pro-Mold had an opportunity to reject the Terms and Conditions with their exclusions of
consequential damages and implied warranties. However, Pro-Mold failed to make any proper
objections or put forward conflicting terms to prevent the inclusion of ESI’s Terms and
Conditions in the contract.
D. The Terms and Conditions Are a Controlling Part of the Contract
The court finds that the Terms and Conditions were part of the Quote. Even if the Terms
and Conditions were not considered to be contained in the Quote, the Quote properly
incorporates them by reference so that they become a controlling part of the Quote. Finally ProMold accepted the Quote, with its Terms and Conditions, without offering conflicting terms or
objections. Therefore, as a matter of law, the court finds that the Terms and Conditions were a
controlling part of the contract between ESI and Pro-Mold. Having made this determination, the
court can consider the contract claims set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint.
II. BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (CLAIMS 1 AND 2)
11
In its complaint, Pro-Mold alleges that, as a result of ESI’s alleged breach of contract
(Claim 1) and alleged breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Claim 2), it
suffered damages in amounts “to be proven at trial.” (Compl. at ¶¶35-43.) Such consequential
damages are explicitly excluded by the Terms and Conditions of the contract between ESI and
Pro-Mold. Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions provides:
IN NO EVENT shall ESI-Extrusion Services, Inc. be liable to customer or any party
claiming through customer for any consequential, incidental or other damages of
any kind arising from or relating to the goods or services of ESI - Extrusion
services, Inc. hereunder or any delay in providing any such goods or services, it being
understood and agreed that the sole and exclusive remedy of customer for any default of
ESI - Extrusion Services, Inc. shall be the repair, replacement or correction of defective
goods or services under the foregoing Warranty. If, however, defects in the goods or
services of ESI- Extrusion Services, Inc. hereunder cannot be remedied by such
repair, replacement or correction, the responsibility of ESI- Extrusion Services, Inc.
to customer shall in no even exceed the purchase price of such goods or services.
(Emphasis added in bold).
Therefore, under the Terms and Conditions, Pro-Mold’s initial remedy is repair or
replacement of any alleged defects in accordance with the warranty. If Pro-Mold establishes at
trial that the machinery cannot be repaired, replaced, or corrected within the warranty, the
damages awarded cannot exceed the purchase price. The UCC allows for this kind of risk
allocation. See U.C.C. § 2-719(1)(a) (stating that contracting parties may “limit or alter the
measure of damages recoverable.”); see also Monarch Nutritional Labs, Inc. v. Maximum
Human Performance, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36000, *27-28 (D. Utah) (stating that it is
“standard in trade practice” to allow the “proper allocation of risk between merchants” pursuant
to U.C.C. § 2-719(1)(a)).
Therefore, partial summary judgment is granted in ESI’s favor as to Pro-Mold’s first two
12
claims, limiting the award of damages to Pro-Mold to the purchase price of the failed machinery.
III. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
Pro-Mold’s claim for alleged breach of implied warranties (Claim 3) is specifically
precluded by the contracts Terms and Conditions. Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions states
that:
The foregoing warranty is in lieu of all other representations or warranties of ESIExtrusion Services, Inc., it being recognized and agreed that THERE ARE NO OTHER
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT ABILITY
[sic] OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, applicable to the goods or
services of ESI - Extrusion Services, Inc. to be provided hereunder.
Section 2-316 of the U.C.C. permits the disclaimer of implied warranties. However, in
order “to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the
language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous.” U.C.C. §
2-316 (2); Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-316(2). Additionally, in “order to exclude or modify any
implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous.” U.C.C. § 2316(2); Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-316(2). A contract term is conspicuous when it is “so written,
displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have
noticed it.” Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j). “Whether a term is ‘conspicuous’ or not is a
decision for the court.” Id. That statute states that the ultimate “test is whether attention can
reasonably be expected to be called to [the conspicuous terms].” The statute offers the court
guidance, stating that conspicuous terms include “a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size
than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the
13
same or lesser size.” Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j)(i). Conspicuous terms also include
“language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in
contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text ... that call attention to the language.”
Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j)(ii).
The exclusion of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness included in ESI’s
Terms and Conditions complies with these requirements. The exclusion of the implied warranties
of merchantability mentions merchantability specifically pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-316(2) and Utah
Code Ann. § 70A-2-316(2). Furthermore, the exclusion is conspicuous since the section
including it is set off by a heading in bold, italicized capitals which are greater in size than the
surrounding text. See Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j)(i). Furthermore, the actual language
excluding the implied warranties of merchantability appears in italicized capitals, set off from
the rest of the paragraph. Utah Code Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j)(ii).
Similarly, the language excluding the implied warranties of fitness is in writing pursuant
to U.C.C. § 2-316(2) and Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-316(2). It is also conspicuous in the same
manner as the exclusion of implied warranties of merchantability, in accordance with Utah Code
Ann. § 70A-1a-201(2)(j). All other warranties, aside from ESI’s general warranty provided in the
Terms and Conditions, are similarly excluded. As a result, ESI’s motion for summary judgment
regarding Pro-Mold’s third claim for breach of implied warranty is granted because such claims
are explicitly precluded by the language of the contract as a matter of law.
IV. MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENCE, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT (CLAIMS
4-6).
Pro-Mold stipulates that if the court finds a binding and operative contract, its claims for
14
negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment are preempted and should be
dismissed. (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Partial Summ. J.at 12.) Because the court finds that
there was a binding and operable contract covering Pro-Mold’s contract claims, the court grants
ESI’s motion for summary judgment regarding Pro-Mold’s fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for
misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
Having determined that ESI’s Terms and Conditions are a controlling part of the contract
between Pro-Mold and ESI, the court GRANTS ESI’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore,
any award of damages to Pro-Mold under the first two causes of action for breach of contract and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are limited to the amount of the
purchase price of the equipment according to ESI’s general contract warranty. Pro-Mold’s third
cause of action for breach of implied warranties is precluded by the contract and are therefore
DISMISSED. Finally, Pro-Mold’s fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action for misprepresentation,
negligence, and unjust enrichment are preempted by the courts holding on the first three contract
claims and are consequently DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED this 8th day of July, 2013.
_________________________________
Dee Benson
United States District Judge
15
16
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?