AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, APPELLEE,
v.
MCKOY-HELGERSON COMPANY, APPELLANT
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 limitation of liability provision was part of the contract, thus barring the counterclaim for damages beyond the contract price.
American Cast Iron Pipe Company sued McKoy-Helgerson Company for payment due on a pipe sale. McKoy-Helgerson counterclaimed for damages due to defecti…
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 Counterclaim For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In an action by American Cast Iron Pipe Company, a manufacturer of pipe, •against McKoy-Helgerson Company, a general contractor, for a balance admittedly due under a contract for the sale of a quantity of pipe, the defendant interposed in its answer a counterclaim for damages alleged to have been sustained by it as a result of defects in some of the pipe delivered. The manufacturer relied upon a printed “condition” included in certain papers which it alleged were part of the contract. The “condition” limited the seller’s liability for defective material to the contract price. The defendant maintained that the papers containing the limitation of liability were not a part of the contract.
There is no dispute as to what papers passed between the parties or as to the provisions they contained; the controversy is solely as to the legal conclusion to be drawn from the undisputed facts. The District Court concluded that the limitation of liability was a part of the contract, and accordingly dismissed the counterclaim for damages resulting from the defects. However, it granted a credit to the defendant for the purchase price of the defective material.
We agree with the court’s reasons, which are set forth in a full and satisfactory opinion, and need not be repeated. 226 F.Supp. 842. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff is
Affirmed.