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

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

The underlying business dispute spawned three lawsuits. The first suit was brought by a seller, Beaunit (D), against a buyer, Tanbro (P), to recover the purchase price of goods sold and delivered. P filed a counterclaim for breach of warranty; improper manufacture that resulted in yarn slippage. D denied P's counterclaim. In the next suit, P sued Amity (D1) for replevin of goods in D's possession. D counterclaimed that the goods were subject to an artisan's lien and claimed that the yarn slippage was caused by D's improper handling. D claimed that it resulted from D1's improper manufacture. The third suit was by Tanbro (P) against D1 and D claiming that one of them caused the yarn slippage. P made a motion to consolidate the three actions. This last action is the main action before the court. D and D1 made cross-motions to dismiss the complaint because each had separate and independent contracts with P; there was no common question of law and fact arising out of a common transaction. The motion to consolidate was denied, and Ds’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint as against it was granted.

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

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