 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Protek11/7/2005
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
{ } Plaintiff-appellant Protek, Ltd. (hereinafter "Protek") appeals that portion of the December 14, 2004 Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas declining to award all of Protek's claimed damages and granting defendant-appellee Lake Erie Screw Corporation's (hereinafter "LES") counterclaim for unpaid invoices, after finding defendant-appellee Lake Erie Screw Corporation breached the parties' agreement. LES cross-appeals that portion of the judgment entry finding it materially breached the terms of the parties' agreement, awarding Protek costs due to customer charge-back and expedited shipping, and failing to award LES prejudgment interest.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{ } This case arises out of an agreement between the parties whereby Lake Erie Screw agreed to manufacture and deliver specialty bolts to Protek. Protek alleges LES breached the agreement by failing to meet delivery due dates and by delivering defective product.
{ } Both parties are registered QS 9000/ISO 9002 facilities, certifying the implementation of certain processes emphasizing defect prevention and reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain. A QS 9000 supplier is required to establish systems to support 100% on-time shipments to meet customer production and service requirements. Whenever non-conforming product is produced or supplied, QS 9000 certification requires the completion of corrective action reports to address and correct the problem and eliminate the cause of non-conformities.
{ } In the Fall of 2001, an outside sales representative for LES called upon Protek's predecessor, Alliance Steel Products, Inc. At the time, LES was aware Protek was experiencing problems with its then supplier. The representative indicated LES was an ISO9002/QS9000 registered manufacturer. Later, Alliance Steel Products, Inc. contacted LES asking them to quote the production of certain specialty bolts for use in Protek's tank pad production. LES responded quoting quantities to be produced, delivery dates and price. The quotes bore the legend "Registered ISO9002/QS9000." Alliance Steel Products did not accept the quote.
{ } LES submitted a second quote to Protek on December 17, 2001. The second quote modified the terms of pricing and delivery dates. Protek accepted the second quote and began issuing purchase orders on January 4, 2002. The purchases were ordered for inclusion in tank pad assemblies to be shipped to Goodyear for inclusion in a military project for tanks and fighting vehicles.
{ } On March 13, 2002, LES submitted a quotation for a seventh type of bolt. On March 25, 2002, a re-quotation was submitted. A second re-quotation was submitted on June19, 2002.
{ } Protek did not specify or agree to pay only for a defect free product. The terms and conditions of the purchase orders did not contract for "defect free" bolts. The LES quotes contained an express warranty limiting its liability and Protek's remedies.
{ } Approximately 90% of the bolts supplied by LES to Protek were to be used by Protek to assemble the tank pads to be used by Goodyear in the production of the tanks for the U.S. military. Approximately 10% of the bolts supplied by LES to Protek were used to service customers other than Goodyear.
{ } At the time of the initial requested quotation from LES regarding bolts, Protek faxed copies of the different bolts to LES. Some of the prints were legible, some were "fuzzy", and some were illegible. LES requested Protek provide clearer prints, but the mailed prints were no more legible and the faxed prints did not provide any clarification. Protek indicated
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|