Universal Oil Products Company v. SCM Corporation
Decision Date | 08 May 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 13535. |
Citation | 313 F. Supp. 905 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. S.C.M. CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Lawrence P. Weisman, of Cohen & Wolf, Bridgeport, Conn., for plaintiff.
Ridgeway M. Hall, Jr., of Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, Conn., for defendant.
In this diversity action brought to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to sell and defendant agreed to buy a catalytic incinerator unit for pollution control, defendant having moved, pursuant to the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3 (1964), for a stay of the action pending arbitration pursuant to the agreement of the parties, or, in the alternative, for a transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (1964); and
The Court having heard argument by counsel for the respective parties and having received and considered the complaint, the motion, the affidavits and briefs of the respective parties; and
The Court being of the opinion that defendant's motion for a stay of the action pending arbitration should be granted for the reasons that:
(1) After a survey of defendant's Chicago plant made by plaintiff on its own initiative and after some preliminary negotiations, plaintiff submitted to defendant a written proposal dated September 18, 1967 to furnish a catalytic incinerator for the price of $17,150 (later increased to $18,789.20 as the result of inclusion of additional minor items). This proposal was not signed by either party.
(2) Thereafter, under date of March 7, 1968, defendant sent to plaintiff a written purchase order signed by defendant's purchasing agent, referring to plaintiff's proposal of September 18, 1967 and ordering the incinerator subject to the conditions on the reverse side of the purchase order, paragraph 9 of which reads:
(3) Pursuant to defendant's purchase order of March 7, 1968, plaintiff shipped the incinerator to defendant's Chicago plant where it was installed.
(4) After some difficulties in attempting to get the incinerator to function properly, it finally exploded on November 26, 1968, causing injury to some of defendant's employees and rendering the incinerator useless.
(5) A dispute has arisen between the parties, plaintiff demanding that defendant pay the purchase price of the incinerator and defendant claiming that the incinerator was defective and not properly designed and constructed.
(6) Defendant has demanded arbitration of the controversy in accordance with paragraph 9 of the purchase order of March 7, 1968. Plaintiff has refused to proceed to arbitration and has brought the instant action in this Court to recover the purchase price of the incinerator.
(7) Defendant's purchase order of March 7, 1968, being a counter-offer rather than an acceptance of plaintiff's proposal of September 18, 1967, 1 Corbin On Contracts § 82 (1963 ed.), created in plaintiff a power of acceptance which was exercised by plaintiff's performance in shipping the incinerator pursuant to the terms of the purchase order, 1 Corbin, supra, § 70, at 288; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maidman v. O'BRIEN, 73 Civ. 4018.
...against both defendants pending the outcome of the arbitration between Evans and Maidman. Accord, Universal Oil Products Company v. S.C.M. Corp., 313 F.Supp. 905, 906 (D.Conn.1970); cf. Bunge Corporation v. MV Furness Bridge, 390 F.Supp. 603, 605-606 (E.D.La.1974)." Opinion at 29 Of the fiv......
-
Dorton v. Collins & Aikman Corporation
...offer. 3 It is not inconceivable that a buyer might request that all claims be submitted to arbitration, see Universal Oil Products v. S.C.M. Corp., 313 F.Supp. 905 (D.Conn.1970), or that a buyer might orally submit to the seller's known policy of arbitration in order to facilitate acceptan......
-
Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Commonwealth Petrochem., Inc.
...is "a contract evidencing a transaction" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act. In Universal Oil Products Co. v. S. C. M. Corp., 313 F.Supp. 905 (D.Conn. 1970), Judge Timbers compelled arbitration under a contract formed by the seller's delivery pursuant to a counter-offer consi......
-
Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. v. Docutel Corporation
...specific reference to the incorporation was signed by plaintiff. There is a valid arbitration clause. Universal Oil Products Co. v. S. C. M. Corp., 313 F.Supp. 905 (D. Conn.1970); Howard Hill, Inc. v. George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 473 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 2. A dispute has arisen between the pla......