604 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Tenn. 1984), Civ. 1-82-520, Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Inc.

Docket Nº:Civ. 1-82-520
Citation:604 F.Supp. 821
Party Name:Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
Case Date:May 04, 1984
Court:United States District Courts, 6th Circuit, Eastern District of Tennessee
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 821

604 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Tenn. 1984)

BOWATER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Plaintiff,

v.

MURRAY MACHINERY, Inc., Murray Southern, Inc., Alabama Industrial Fabricators, Inc., Logan R. Ritchie, Jr., and Edgardo Manuel Diaz, Defendants,

and

MURRAY MACHINERY, Inc. & Murray Southern, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

J.M. FOSTER, Inc., Harry Tobey and Hoff and Associates, Third-Party Defendants.

Civ. No. 1-82-520.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Northern Division.

May 4, 1984

Raymond R. Murphy, Jr., James R. Buckner, Miller & Martin, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Logan R. Ritchie, Jr., Consulting Engineer, P.C.; W.B. Luther, Luther, Anderson, Cleary & Ruth, Chattanooga, Tenn., for J.M. Foster, Inc.

W. Neil Thomas, III, Thomas, Mann & Gossett, P.C., Chattanooga, Tenn., for third-party defendant Dr. Harry G. Tobey.

George L. Foster, Hall, Haynes, Lusk & Foster, Chattanooga, Tenn., for third-party defendant pro se Hoff & Associates.

Edgardo Manuel Diaz, pro se.

R. Vann Owens, Leitner, Warner, Owens, Moffitt, Williams & Dooley, Chattanooga, Tenn., for Alabama Industrial Fabricators, Inc.

W. Ferber Tracy, and Mark Ramsey, Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, Chattanooga, Tenn., Ruder, Ware, Michler & Forester, S.C., Wausau, Wis., for Murray Machinery, Inc. and Murray Southern, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

MILBURN, District Judge.

This cause is presently before the Court for interpretation of a Settlement Agreement and Release (hereinafter, agreement) which was prepared by the parties to settle

Page 822

and compromise disputes arising out of the purchase of a long log boom by Bowater North America Corporation (hereinafter, Bowater) from Murray Machinery, Inc. and Murray Southern, Inc. (hereinafter, Murray). The present dispute is over the method of calculating a cash settlement and future credits to be provided to Bowater in its purchases of Murray products.

The part of the agreement with which the present controversy is concerned reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Murray has agreed to pay to Bowater the sum of Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($214,000) in cash; has agreed to sell to Bowater such of its products and replacement parts from Murray's product line as Bowater shall, from time to time, select and has agreed to provide Bowater credit of Two Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand and No/100...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP