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

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

D designed and sold P a gas compressor train for use in the production of ammonia. The contract contained an express warranty guaranteeing that the train would be free from defects and comply with certain technical specifications. As an exclusive remedy for the breach of this warranty, D offered to correct promptly any defect at its own expense. It did not work as promised. The high case compressor broke in 1990. The low-case compressor broke in 1993 and again in 1996. Each time one of the compressors malfunctioned, D attempted to repair the compressor train. In March 1997, P filed suit for breach of the express warranty, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and negligent design. At the end of P's case-in-chief, held that the 'economic loss' doctrine barred P's negligent design claim. The jury found that D had breached (1) the implied warranty of merchantability; (2) the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; and (3) the express warranty. The jury awarded P $ 4,422,876.92 in damages for the profits lost during the three different periods when the compressor train was malfunctioning. D appealed. In part, D challenges both the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damage award and whether the jury's method of computation was flawed.

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

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

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