Acme Markets, Inc. v. Federal Armored Express, Inc.

Facts

P filed a breach of contract complaint against D alleging that the parties had entered into a contract for armored car service and that the agreement later was amended to provide for the timely reimbursement of service-related losses. P averred that a D employee was robbed on May 19, 1990, after accepting possession of one of P's cash bags. P asserted that even though it had notified D promptly of the $ 62,544.32 loss, D had not made the reimbursement required by the agreement. P requested an award of damages equivalent to the amount of the loss. Relying on the fifth paragraph of the agreement: 'Responsibility of Federal under this contract shall begin when said [cash]bags or packages have been accepted and receipted for by Federal or its authorized employees and shall terminate upon delivery to consignee or upon return to shipper,' D claimed that it bore no responsibility for the loss since neither it nor any of its employees had accepted the bag or provided the necessary receipt prior to the robbery. D moved for summary judgment. D noted that neither party disputed the fact that the employee in question had not provided a receipt for the bag prior to its loss. Consequently, relying upon both the fifth paragraph of the agreement and an affidavit demonstrating that the receipt requirement conformed with the custom of the armored car industry, D requested the entry of judgment in its favor. D was awarded summary judgment, and P appealed. P asserts that the trial court erroneously concluded that the fifth paragraph of the agreement constituted a condition precedent to D's liability for the lost bag. D claims that the paragraph was not labeled a condition precedent and does not contain other language normally associated with such a condition, and there is no means by which to state with the certainty \that it creates a condition precedent.'

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.