ANGELICA UNIFORM GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PONDEROSA SYSTEMS, INC., 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 affirmed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding no merit to the appellant's arguments regarding jury instructions.
Angelica sued Ponderosa for breach of a requirements contract for uniforms. The jury returned a verdict for Ponderosa. Angelica moved for a new trial,…
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 Good Faith In Contract Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. (Angelica) appeals the district court’s denial of their motion for new trial, 487 F.Supp. 1374.
Angelica brought suit against Ponderosa Systems, Inc. (Ponderosa) for an alleged breach of a requirements contract for the purchase of uniforms. On January 18, 1980, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Thereafter, Angelica moved for a new trial alleging, inter alia, that the district court erred in instructing the jury that it must find for Ponderosa unless Angelica had shown that Ponderosa reduced its requirements in bad faith. The district court denied the motion. The district court found that section 2-306(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (Mo.Rev.Stat. § 400.2-306) has been interpreted as allowing a buyer under a requirements contract to order reductions which are highly disproportionate to a stated estimate, if such reductions are done in good faith.
We have carefully studied the record, including the district court’s opinion and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to appellant’s arguments, and accordingly affirm on the basis of Judge HUNGATE’S opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Empire GAS Corp. v. Am. Bakeries Co., 840 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1988)
-
Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670 (3d Cir. 1991)
-
Tigg Corp. v. DOW Corning Corp., 962 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir. 1992)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence