Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CARL BEASLEY FORD, INC. v. BURROUGHS CORP.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 13, 1973

CARL BEASLEY FORD, INC.
v.
BURROUGHS CORPORATION

Luongo, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO

Luongo, District Judge.

Carl Beasley Ford, Inc. (Beasley), a Ford dealer, bought from Burroughs Corporation (Burroughs), the manufacturer of the equipment, electronic accounting equipment (E-4000 Series) to produce records required under Beasley's franchise agreement with Ford Motor Company. Contending that the equipment failed to perform as warranted, Beasley instituted this suit to recover the purchase price and consequential damages. The case presents many interesting and novel questions relating to Pennsylvania law under the Uniform Commercial Code, 12A P.S. ยง 1 -- 101 et seq.

 In a bifurcated trial, the issues were submitted to the jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a) for special verdict, and the jury answered interrogatories as follows:

 

(LIABILITY)

 

"1. Did the plaintiff and defendant enter into an oral understanding and agreement for the furnishing by defendant to plaintiff of programming for the E-4000 machine purchased by plaintiff?

 

Yes X No

 

If your answer to # 1 is "YES":

 

2. Did the defendant agree to provide programming which would perform the functions which had been performed by the Reynold & Reynolds books and produce information necessary to preparation and submission of Ford Financial Reports?

 

Yes X No

 

3. Did the plaintiff rely on the defendant's skill and judgment in selecting and furnishing suitable programming for the E-4000 accounting machine?

 

Yes X No

 

4. Did the defendant promise and agree to provide such programming for the E-4000 machine by January 2, 1970?

 

Yes X No

 

5. Did the defendant provide, by January 2, 1970, programming adequate to accomplish the purposes contemplated by the agreement and understanding between the parties?

 

Yes No X

 

6. If your answer to # 5 is "NO", did defendant provide such programming within a reasonable time after January 2, 1970?

 

Yes No X

 

If your answer to both # 5 and # 6 is "NO":

 

7. Did the plaintiff reject the E-4000 machine within a reasonable time after it knew or should have known that defendant would not provide programming adequate to accomplish the purposes contemplated by the agreement and understanding between the parties?

 

Yes X No

 

8. Did the plaintiff at anytime accept the E-4000 machine and the programs submitted by defendant?

 

Yes No X

 

9. If your answer to #8 is "YES", specify when.

 

"

 

(DAMAGES)

 

"1. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the purchase price of the E-4000 equipment?

 

Yes X No

 

(If your answer is "YES" the parties have agreed that the purchase price is $35,000.)

 

2. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover interest paid on the loan by which the purchase price was paid?

 

Yes X No

 

(If your answer is "YES", the parties have agreed that the interest paid is $5,600.)

 

3. Is plaintiff entitled to recover any of the following items as consequential damages. If so, fill in the amount; if not, leave the amount blank.*

  (a) Overtime to employes ONE (b) Extra help $ 867.50 (c) Accountant's services $ 16,840.00 (d) Computer services $ 6,704.82

19730713

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.