ARO EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NATKIN & COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the contract was not a requirements contract and was breached by the appellant, and that the trial court's findings and judgment were supported by evidence and free from prejudicial error.
Appellant sued on a contract for Service Merchandisers. The trial court found the contract was breached by the appellant and was not a 'requirements' …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Requirements Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal having been heard' on the record, briefs and arguments of counsel for respective parties; '
And the -Court being of the opinion that the findings of fact by the District Judge are supported by the evidence and are not. clearly erroneous
And that the contract herein sued on, and as it may have been modified thereafter, was not a “requirements” contract which would permit the appellant to order as little or as many of the Service Merchandisers from month to month and from year to year as it might choose to order, and that said contract was breached by the appellant;
And that the alleged variance between the allegations of the amended complaint and the proof were not of such a nature as to prejudice the appellant; Rule 15(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; Ruud v. American Packing & Provision Co., 9 Cir., 177 F. 2d 538, 541; National Dairymen’s Ass’n v. Dean Milk Co., 7 Cir., 183 F. 2d 349, 355;
And that the opinion of the trial court meets the requirements of Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, with respect to findings of fact and' conclusions of law, Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, 9 Cir., 170 F. 2d 569, 574.
And no prejudicial error of law appearing ;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court, 109 F.Supp. 273, be and is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burnham Chem. Co. v. Borax Consolidated, 170 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1948)
- Ruud v. Am. Packing & Provision Co., 177 F.2d 538 (9th Cir. 1949)
- Nat'l Dairymen Ass'n, Inc. v. Dean Milk Co., 183 F.2d 349 (7th Cir. 1950)