![]() To the contrary, the court determined that the U.C.C. 3 Attwood points out that the agreement at issue, a letter of January 28, 1997, specifies no quantity of propellers nor contains any exclusivity provision.īut the district court denied the motion, refusing to hold as a matter of law that the U.C.C. 2 The statute of frauds bars recovery under a sales contract that lacks a written quantity term or a written specification that the buyer will purchase exclusively from the seller. PRINTING CENTER OF TEXAS INC V SUPERMIND CODE1 Attwood appeals, contesting each claim on which damages were awarded, and PowerTech cross appeals, contesting the ruling on attorney's fees and asking for reinstatement of contract damages.īecause the agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term, we reverse and render.Īt the close of PowerTech's evidence, Attwood moved for judgment as a matter of law urging that the Texas Uniform Commercial Code governed the parties' agreement and that its statute of frauds bars recovery. PRINTING CENTER OF TEXAS INC V SUPERMIND TRIALAfter post trial motions, the district court denied a request by PowerTech for attorney's fees and entered judgment in an amount reflecting the damages awarded for fraudulent inducement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and punitive damages, but not contract damages. It awarded PowerTech actual and punitive damages. A jury found that Attwood breached a contract with PowerTech, fraudulently induced PowerTech to enter into the contract, and misappropriated trade secrets. Defendant Attwood Corporation formerly operated a foundry and produced rough castings of propellers for PowerTech. Plaintiff Propulsion Technologies d/b/a PowerTech! Marine Propellers (“PowerTech”) markets small steel boat propellers manufactured by a unique “segmented blade” tooling technique. Fowler, Rebecca Anne Womeldorf, Shawn Derek Bryant, Spriggs & Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, for Chamber of Commerce of U.S., Amicus Curiae. David William DeBruin (argued), William Mark Hohengarten, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, for Attwood Corp. Nicholson, Gwendolyn Johnson Samora, Daniel Saul Goldberg, Vinson & Elkins, Kim Bernard Battaglini, Manuel Lopez, Kristi Belt, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Houston, TX, for Propulsion Technologies, Inc. Marie Roach Yeates (argued), Catherine B. Decided: May 26, 2004īefore JOLLY, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges. ATTWOOD CORPORATION et al., Defendants, Attwood Corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a PowerTech Marine Propellers, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. ![]() United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |