Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
825 F.3d 453 (2016)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a contractual remedy limited to repair or replacement fails of its essential purpose when the seller is given a reasonable opportunity to correct defects but the product repeatedly fails to function properly, thereby depriving the buyer of the substantial value of the bargain and entitling the buyer to general remedies.

Facts:

Lincoln Composites, Inc. (Lincoln) manufactures composite tanks for storing natural gas and purchased custom fire detection tubing from Firetrace USA, LLC (Firetrace) for installation in these tanks.
The contract for the tubing was disputed; Firetrace's terms limited remedies for defects to repair or replacement, while Lincoln's terms contained no such limitation.
The fire detection tubing supplied by Firetrace was defective, causing it to fail and vent natural gas when there was no fire.
Over an 18-month period, Firetrace made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to repair or replace the defective tubing.
After these repeated failures, Lincoln determined it could no longer use the tubing and demanded a refund of the purchase price.
Firetrace refused the refund, asserting that the contract limited Lincoln's remedy exclusively to repair or replacement of the defective tubing.

Procedural Posture:

Lincoln Composites, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against Firetrace USA, LLC in Nebraska state court, alleging breach of contract and breach of warranties.
Firetrace removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska based on diversity jurisdiction.
Following an eight-day trial, a jury returned a verdict for Lincoln, awarding $920,227.76 in damages for breach of an express warranty.
Firetrace filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or remittitur pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
While its Rule 59 motion was still pending, Firetrace, as appellant, filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The district court subsequently denied Firetrace's Rule 59 motion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a seller's limited remedy of repair or replacement fail of its essential purpose when, over an 18-month period, the seller's multiple attempts to fix defective tubing are unsuccessful, thus entitling the buyer to recover damages for breach of an express warranty?

Opinions:

Majority - Kelly, Circuit Judge

Yes. A limited remedy of repair or replacement fails of its essential purpose when circumstances, such as a seller's repeated inability to cure a defect, deprive the buyer of the substantial value of the bargain. The jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence under two possible theories. First, if Firetrace's terms governed, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the repair or replace remedy failed its essential purpose because Firetrace had a reasonable chance over 18 months to fix the defective tubing but was unable to do so, as established by testimony from Lincoln's engineering director and an expert witness. Second, if Lincoln's terms governed, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Firetrace had notice of and was bound by Lincoln's terms, which were referenced in every purchase order and made available on Lincoln's website, and which did not limit remedies. The court also found no plain error or abuse of discretion in the district court's jury instructions or its denial of a new trial on damages, as the jury's award was supported by sufficient evidence.

Analysis:

This case provides a strong affirmation of the 'failure of essential purpose' doctrine under UCC § 2-719, clarifying that a seller does not have an unlimited amount of time to make a repair-or-replace remedy effective. The decision reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts grant to jury findings of fact, making it difficult to overturn a verdict on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds. It also illustrates that contract terms incorporated by reference to a website can be binding if the other party is given adequate notice. For law students, this case is a practical example of how UCC principles are applied to complex commercial disputes and highlights the critical importance of preserving objections at trial to avoid the stringent 'plain error' standard on appeal.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"