Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Civ. No. 1-82-520.
Decision Date | 04 May 1984 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1-82-520. |
Citation | 604 F. Supp. 821 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Parties | 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. |
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.
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 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:
Bowater contends that the language "which are to be credited at 10% off Murray's standard sales price for like products" means that Bowater is going to get its next $286,000 worth of parts and equipment purchases from Murray without charge. Furthermore, the price Bowater will be charged for this equipment, for the purpose of applying the credits against the price, will be 10% less than Murray's list price. For example, if Bowater...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Inc.
...appeals from an order of dismissal entered on May 4, 1984 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 604 F.Supp. 821, then District Judge H. Theodore Milburn In the action below, Bowater had filed suit, alleging negligent breach of contract and breach of warr......
-
Wachtel v. Shoney's, Inc.
...and the contours of the arbitrators authority in a given case are set by the arbitration agreement. Bowater North Am. Corp. v. Murray Machinery, 604 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Tenn.1984); aff'd, 773 F.2d 71 (6th Cir.1985). It is the responsibility of the courts to give as broad a construction to an a......