This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Warranty

Progressive Digestion Corporation v. Pat Biggs, Central Valley Tank of California

Published: Aug. 28, 2010 | Result Date: May 12, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: M9 8522 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Monterey Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Perry J. Narancic


Defendant

Chase W. Martin


Facts

Progressive Digestion Corp. purchased two used 15,000-gallon polyethylene tanks from Pat Biggs and Central Valley Tank of California for $13,000 on July 7, 2007. During delivery, the driver drove under a bridge, damaging one of the tanks. Subsequently, Progressive accepted both tanks after CVTC agreed to repair the damaged one. After delivery, the parties entered a written warranty for the repaired tank, written to Progressive by Biggs. The warranty stated that CVTC and Biggs would repair the tank for two years if problems with the original repairs occurred. In October 2008, the repaired tank leaked 7,000 gallons of liquid fertilizer after the seam ripped.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Progressive alleged that the warranty extended to both tanks, and CVTC and Biggs were obligated to compensate Progressive if either tanks leaked fertilizer stored in the tanks. Progressive alleged that after CVTC repaired the October leak, the tank continued to leak. Progressive filed suit against Biggs and CVTC, alleging breach of the warranty. Progressive alleged the companies failed to take reparative steps, replace or compensate for the failure of the tank after October 2008. Progressive contended the tanks were not fit for ordinary use.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
CVTC and Biggs contended that the warranty only extended to the damaged tank's repairs, and that such repairs were taken within a reasonable amount of time whenever Progressive requested. They also alleged that Progressive was a sophisticated buyer who should have known of the dangers associated with purchasing a used tank and accepting a damaged tank. CVTC and Biggs further contended that the tanks were fit for their intended purposes, having been in use for 16 months without substantial complaint.

Damages

Progressive sought the price of the contract, payment for the spilled fertilizer, as well as damages for lost storage capacity leading to lost profits of $195,000.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defense.

Deliberation

two hours

Length

three days


#82109

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390