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.

EBASCO SERVS. v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. V.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


August 27, 1975

EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
v.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY and COMBUSTION ENGINEERING COMPANY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: BECKER

OPINION AND ORDER BECKER, J. INDEX I. Preliminary Statement 1 II. Is the Language of Limitation Contained in Supplement 16 Sufficient to Insulate GE from PP&L's Claims for Cost of Replacement Power and Lost Profits and from Claims Predicated Upon Breach of Implied Warranty? 9 III. Is There a Genuine Issue of Material Fact on the Question Whether PP&L Obtained Contractual Rights Pursuant to § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, by Virtue of the GE Quotation of July 15, 1964, the PP&L Purchase Order of July 21, 1964, and the Events Occurring Thereafter but Prior to December 7, 1967, the Date Upon Which Supplement 16 was Executed; if PP&L Obtained Contractual Rights Pursuant to § 2-207, did Ebasco Have Authority to Impair These Rights? (Is PP&L Bound by Supplement 16?) 20 A. Introduction 20 B. Issues of Fact Under § 2-207(1) 28 C. Issues of Fact Under § 2-207(2) 31 D. Issues of Fact Under § 2-207(3) 37 E. Ebasco's Authority to Bind PP&L to Supplement 16 39 1. Third-party Beneficiary Status 39 2. Ebasco's Power as Agent of PP&L 40 a. The Applicable Agency Law 40 b. The Factual Background 42 c. Discussion 44 d. Conclusion 51 IV. Is There a Genuine Issue of Material Fact on the Question Whether GE Tortiously Interfered with the Contractual and/or Fiduciary Relationship Between PP&L and Ebasco? 54 A. Introduction 54 B. Did GE Have Knowledge of the Irihts with which They are Alleged to Have Interfered? 56 C. Did GE Act with the Purpose or Intent to Harm PP&L? 58 D. Was PP&L Harmed by the Alleged Interference? 59 E. Was GE Privileged to Act as it Did? 59

19750827

© 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.