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.

REACTION MOLDING TECHS. v. GE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 26, 1984

REACTION MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. t/a Rim/Precision
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORD

Lord, S.J.

 I. Procedural Posture

 Plaintiff's complaint comprises three counts. In Count I, plaintiff alleges that plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in 1982 whereby plaintiff agreed to construct four molds to be used by defendant to manufacture medical equipment and defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $259,100. Count I further alleges that defendant breached the contract by unilaterally terminating the agreement by letter dated May 7, 1982.

 Count II alleges that two years before forming the contract alleged in Count I, plaintiff and defendant had entered into agreements in 1980 for plaintiff to construct molds that plaintiff would use to construct parts to be sold to defendant. The contract provided, according to the complaint, that if defendant desired to purchase the molds in addition to the parts, defendant would owe plaintiff an additional sum. The complaint alleges that defendant has demanded delivery of the molds, that plaintiff delivered the molds on October 12, 1982, but that defendant has not paid plaintiff the contract price.

 Count III alleges that in April, 1982, plaintiff delivered to defendant certain parts for which defendant has not paid plaintiff.

  Defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a counterclaim. The amended counterclaim, which does not bring up a new dispute but is merely an answer to plaintiff's Count I, alleges that plaintiff repudiated the 1982 contract and requests the court to order plaintiff to return the $86,368 deposit that defendant gave plaintiff for the production of the molds.

 Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Plaintiff has filed a cross motion seeking summary judgment on plaintiff's Counts I and III and on defendant's counterclaim. I will deny both motions.

 II. Facts The script in this case is complex and the players numerous. Thus, before setting forth the facts, I have composed a chart of the actors appearing most frequently: Plaintiff-Reaction Molding Defendant-General Electric Wilton R. Danien, President Jim Curtis, Waltz' boss David E. Michaelis, Vice-President Frank Waltz, GE Manager and boss to Repinski Jeffrey W. Hill, plaintiff's representative in Chicago Gregory A. Repinski, Project Manager CT9800 Joseph E. Pompe, Tooling Supervisor Lee Rundbaken, Roshak's boss Dick Brandt, GE Engineer Cletus R. Roshak, buyer for GE James Howard, buyer for GE before Roshak Wally Swanson, buyer for GE before Roshak

19840426

© 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.