Betaco (P) put a down payment on a new jet with Cessna (D) on the basis that the new jet would be faster, more efficient, and have more range than the jet they currently owned. P got a brochure and a sales letter from D proclaiming the new jet's attributes. P signed a purchase agreement that contained a read and understand clause and a detailed explanation of warranties (see Calamari 3rd page 310). P paid $150,000 and then discovered that the new jet would not have a greater range and decided to cancel the order. D refused to return the deposit. P sued in diversity for an express breach of warranty. The court ruled against D's claim that the purchase agreement was a fully integrated document. P got to enter cover letter representations of the jets range. P eventually got the jury verdict under the express warranty theory and got the judgment. D appealed. In that appeal, the court vacated the award damages and remanded for the purpose of a hearing on whether the parties intended to the purchase agreement they signed to be a complete embodiment of their contract. The district court said no and D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.