Cryogenic Equipment, Inc. v. Southern Nitrogen, Inc.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit , and STUART
• Citation: Cryogenic Equipment, Inc. v. Southern Nitrogen, Inc., 490 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1974)
• Decision Date: 22 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-1436.,73-1436.
• Parties: CRYOGENIC EQUIPMENT, INC., and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN NITROGEN, INC., and Hunter Turbo Corp., Appellees.

490 F.2d 696 (1974)

CRYOGENIC EQUIPMENT, INC., and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN NITROGEN, INC., and Hunter Turbo Corp., Appellees.

No. 73-1436.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted December 11, 1973.

Decided January 22, 1974.

Robert C. Compton, El Dorado, Ark., for appellant.

William J. Wynne, El Dorado, Ark., and William H. Hodge, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and STUART, District Judge.^*

STUART, District Judge.

Southern Cryogenics, Inc., a corporation not a party to this action, was formed in the early 1960's to produce and market liquid oxygen. One of the by-products of the process used by Southern to produce the oxygen was another common, but potentially profitable gas — nitrogen. Because Southern lacked the facilities needed to liquify this gaseous by-product, the nitrogen produced was simply bled off into the atmosphere and wasted. In an effort to exploit the profit potential represented by this waste gas, William J. Wynne, a stockholder of Southern, formed a new corporation, Southern Nitrogen, Inc. (SNI), an appellee herein.

SNI contracted with the appellant, Cryogenics Equipment, Inc. (CEI), to have CEI construct a nitrogen liquification plant adjacent to Southern's already operational oxygen liquification facility, which plant was to be used to liquify the nitrogen produced by Southern. An integral part of the plant furnished by CEI, a turbo expander unit with an attached compressor, was purchased by CEI from the other appellee herein, a third-party defendant below, Hunter Turbo Corp. (Hunter).

The contract between SNI and CEI, a result of lengthy and detailed negotiations by representatives of both parties, called for SNI to pay CEI $135,000 in exchange for a liquification plant with the capacity to liquify 45,000 standard cubic feet of nitrogen gas per hour. In addition to the specification of plant capacity, the contract contained the following paragraph in its "Standard Conditions of Sale":

1. WARRANTY: Cryogenic Equipment, Inc. (CEI) warrants that the equipment delivered hereunder shall be of the kind and quality described herein, and no other warranty, except of title, shall be implied. * * * Equipment and accessories purchased by CEI from outside vendors are warranted only to the extent of the outside vendors\' warranties to CEI. * * * In no event shall CEI be liable for anticipated profits, consequential damages or loss of use of the equipment or of any installation into which the equipment may be put. (Emphasis added.)

For reasons not germane to this appeal, the plant furnished by CEI was unable to perform satisfactorily and required numerous costly repairs. SNI then brought the instant action against CEI seeking actual, consequential and punitive damages in the amount of $700,000. CEI counterclaimed for $19,703.37, claiming that amount was still due it on the purchase price. CEI also filed a third-party complaint against Hunter for indemnity, claiming that the inability of the plant to perform as promised was due to Hunter's breach of its contract with CEI. Hunter, in turn, counterclaimed against CEI for the $26,457.22 Hunter asserted was the balance due it from CEI. CEI responded to this counterclaim by seeking indemnity therefor from SNI.

After a six-day trial before the Hon. Oren Harris, the jury returned the following verdicts:

1. For SNI on its complaint against CEI in the amount of $121,500;

2. For CEI on its counterclaim against SNI in the amount of $13,500;

3. For Hunter on the third-party complaint of CEI; and

4. For Hunter on its counterclaim against CEI in the amount of $23,093.-22.

The verdict in favor of SNI was further broken down in a special interrogatory as follows:

Loss of profits       $86,500
                Damage to property          0
                Cost of modifications $35,000
                

CEI appeals from so much of the verdict against it in favor of SNI as represents loss of profits and from the verdict in favor of Hunter. SNI has not cross-appealed from the verdict rendered on CEI's counterclaim against it and the correctness of that verdict is not before us.

I. Loss of Profits

In support of its contention that it was error for the court below to submit the question of lost profits to the jury, CEI argues, alternatively, that the contract absolved it from any liability to SNI for loss of profits, or, even if it might otherwise be so liable, the evidence adduced at trial was too remote and speculative to justify submitting that issue to the jury. Because we agree with appellant's position with respect to the effect of the contract, we find it unnecessary to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence of lost profits.

In Gramling v. Baltz (1972), 253 Ark. 361, 485 S.W.2d 183, the Arkansas Supreme Court was faced with the assertion that § 2-719 of the Arkansas Uniform Commercial Code, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 85-2-719 (Add.1961), conditions the enforceability of contractual limitations or exclusions of liability for consequential damages on a single factor — that such limitations not be unconscionable. While it agreed that freedom from unconscionability was one criterion of validity, the court went further, stating that such contractual limitations must also be phrased in "clear and unmistakable language," citing with approval the following disclaimer upheld in Southwest Forest Indus. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (9th Cir., 1970), 422 F.2d 1013, ...