Emirat AG v. High Point Printing LLC
248 F. Supp. 3d 911 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Wisconsin law, a remote buyer generally cannot sue a subcontractor for breach of contract or warranty due to a lack of contractual privity, and the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for purely economic damages arising from a defective product. Any rights of a third-party beneficiary are strictly defined and limited by the terms of the underlying contract, including contractual statutes of limitation and warranty disclaimers.
Facts:
- Emirat AG, a German risk-management company, contracted with Sabafon, a Yemeni telephone company, to provide 25 million combination game and telephone-use scratch-off cards.
- Emirat, not a printer itself, entered a contract with High Point Printing LLC to produce the cards.
- High Point subsequently subcontracted the printing work to WS Packaging Group, Inc.
- Emirat's representatives visited WS Packaging’s plant multiple times to discuss the project and approve press runs.
- An initial shipment of 12.5 million cards in 2008 was found to be defective due to 'candling,' where PINs were visible through the card with a high-intensity light.
- WS Packaging agreed to reprint the cards. After new proofs were approved by Emirat and passed tests by a third-party lab selected by Emirat, a new batch was printed in 2009.
- Upon receiving a shipment in late 2009, Emirat discovered the new cards could also be 'candled' using a novel 'torch light' method that involved bending the card over a light source.
- The parties executed a Settlement Agreement in October 2009, but it was expressly limited to resolving disputes over serial number sequencing and shipping schedules, not card quality or security specifications.
Procedural Posture:
- Emirat AG filed a diversity action against WS Packaging Group, Inc. and High Point Printing LLC in the United States District Court.
- Defendant High Point Printing LLC filed a Certificate of Dissolution and did not appear in the action.
- Plaintiff Emirat AG filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
- Defendant WS Packaging Group, Inc. filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Wisconsin law, can a remote buyer (Emirat) successfully bring claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, or negligence against a subcontractor (WS Packaging) for allegedly defective goods when there is no direct contract for production between them?
Opinions:
Majority - C. N. Clevert, Jr.
No. A remote buyer like Emirat cannot successfully sue a subcontractor like WS Packaging under these circumstances. The court found that the Settlement Agreement between the parties did not create new obligations regarding product quality but was strictly limited to resolving disputes about serial numbers and shipping. Emirat was not a party to the primary production contract between High Point and WS Packaging, and therefore lacked privity. Even if Emirat were considered a third-party beneficiary to that contract, its claim would be barred by the contract's explicit one-year statute of limitations, which Emirat failed to meet. Furthermore, the contract contained extensive warranty disclaimers and limitations on liability that would also bar Emirat's claims. Finally, Emirat's negligence claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine, which prevents recovery in tort for purely economic losses arising from a product's failure to perform as expected in a commercial context.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the doctrines of privity of contract and economic loss in commercial transactions involving a chain of contracts. It illustrates that even substantial involvement by an end-buyer in a subcontractor's production process does not automatically create an enforceable direct contract or overcome the lack of privity. The decision serves as a crucial reminder for remote purchasers that their primary recourse is against the party with whom they directly contracted. It also highlights the power of contractual limitations periods and warranty disclaimers in subcontracts to shield subcontractors from liability to parties further down the supply chain.
Unlock the full brief for Emirat AG v. High Point Printing LLC