Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Systems, Inc., 80-1280
| Decision Date | 22 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1280,80-1280 |
| Citation | 636 F.2d 232 |
| Parties | 30 UCC Rep.Serv. 460 ANGELICA UNIFORM GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. PONDEROSA SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jim J. Shoemake, G. Lane Roberts, Jr., Guilfoil, Symington, Petzall & Shoemake, St. Louis, Mo., for Angelica Uniform Group, Inc.
Frank Hamsher, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Elson & Cornfeld, St. Louis, Mo., Roger Makley, Coolidge, Wall, Matusoff, Womsley & Lombard, Dayton, Ohio, for Ponderosa Systems, Inc.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. (Angelica) appeals the district court's denial of their motion for new trial, 487 F.Supp. 1374.
Angelica brought suit against Ponderosa Systems, Inc. (Ponderosa) for an alleged breach of a requirements contract for the purchase of uniforms. On January 18, 1980, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Thereafter, Angelica moved for a new trial alleging, inter alia, that the district court erred in instructing the jury that it must find for Ponderosa unless Angelica had shown that Ponderosa reduced its requirements in bad faith. The district court denied the motion. The district court found that section 2-306(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (Mo.Rev.Stat. § 400.2-306) has been interpreted as allowing a buyer under a requirements contract to order reductions which are highly disproportionate to a stated estimate, if such reductions are done in good faith.
We have carefully studied the record, including the district court's opinion and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to appellant's arguments, and accordingly affirm on the basis of Judge HUNGATE'S opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Union v. Steele Software Systems Corp.
...contract, buyer was entitled to reduce its requirement to zero, so long as it did so in good faith); Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Sys., Inc., 636 F.2d 232, 232 (8 th Cir.1980)(same); R.A. Weaver & Assocs., Inc. v. Asphalt Constr., Inc., 587 F.2d 1315, 1322 (D.C.Cir.1978)(requir......
-
Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
...Co. v. Perini Corp., 989 F.2d 541, 544-45 (1st Cir.1993); Empire Gas, 840 F.2d at 1337-38; Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Sys., Inc., 636 F.2d 232, 232 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam). While some commentators have criticized the disparate treatment of increases and decreases, see Sil......
-
Advent Systems Ltd. v. Unisys Corp.
...does not mean in and of itself that there was a breach of the covenant of good faith. See, e.g., Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Systems, Inc., 636 F.2d 232, 232 (8th Cir.1980); R.A. Weaver & Assoc., Inc. v. Asphalt Construction, Inc., 587 F.2d 1315, 1321-22 (D.C.Cir.1978); Southw......
-
Tigg Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp.
...(Pa.Com.Code); Empire Gas Corp. v. American Bakeries Co., 840 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir.1988) (Ill.Com.Code); Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Sys., Inc., 636 F.2d 232 (8th Cir.1980) (Mo.Com.Code) (motion for new trial on ground that the court erroneously placed the burden regarding bad f......