932 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991), 90-55868, Bogazici Hava Tasimaciligi A.S. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Docket Nº:90-55868.
Citation:932 F.2d 972
Party Name:BOGAZICI HAVA TASIMACILIGI A.S., Turk Hava Yollari A.O., London and Hull Maritime Insurance Company Ltd., La Paternelle Risques Divers, English and American Underwriting Agency Ltd., Insurance Company of North America (U.K.) Ltd., The Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:May 09, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 972

932 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991)

BOGAZICI HAVA TASIMACILIGI A.S., Turk Hava Yollari A.O., London and Hull Maritime Insurance Company Ltd., La Paternelle Risques Divers, English and American Underwriting Agency Ltd., Insurance Company of North America (U.K.) Ltd., The Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-55868.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 9, 1991

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted April 3, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Central District of California, No. CV-89-0067 JMI; James M. Ideman, District Judge, Presiding.

C.D.Cal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Before SCHROEDER and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. [*]

MEMORANDUM [**]

Plaintiffs-appellants Bogazici Hava Tasimaciligi A.S., et al., appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee McDonnell Douglas Corporation, alleging that the district court erred in granting McDonnell Douglas Corporation's motion for summary judgment on a ground it did not urge. We agree and therefore reverse the district court's decision.

I. FACTS

In September 1972, plaintiffs-appellants Bogazici Hava Tasimaciligi A.S., et al., (hereinafter "Turkish Airlines"), purchased three DC-10 Series 10 aircraft from defendant-appellee McDonnell Douglas Corporation (hereinafter "MDC"). Article 12 of the purchase agreement for the three planes provided:

THE WARRANTY AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE AND THE OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SELLER UNDER SAID WARRANTY AND SERVICE LIFE POLICY ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF, AND BUYER WAIVES, ALL OTHER REMEDIES, WARRANTIES, GUARANTEES OR LIABILITIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO EACH AIRCRAFT, PRODUCT OR ARTICLE DELIVERED HEREUNDER, ARISING BY LAW OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF SELLER ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE OR WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS, MERCHANTABILITY, LOSS OF USE, REVENUE OR PROFIT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.) THIS WARRANTY OR SERVICE LIFE POLICY SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED, ALTERED OR VARIED EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY SELLER AND BUYER.

Approximately 14 years later, on September 26, 1986...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP