Whiting Corporation v. Process Engineering, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1960
• Docket Number: No. 5516.,5516.
• Citation: 273 F.2d 742
• Parties: WHITING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

273 F.2d 742 (1960)

WHITING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Appellee.

No. 5516.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

January 20, 1960.

Alfred Sigel, Boston, Mass., with whom Clarence P. Kudisch, Boston, Mass., was on the brief, for appellant.

Robert I. Ectman, Boston, Mass., with whom Norman I. Hassman and Nathanson & Rudofsky, Boston, Mass., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint.

The facts may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff-appellant, an Illinois corporation, sued defendant-appellee for $25,292.00 damages for breach of warranty. The plaintiff's purchase order to the defendant for certain rectangular expansion joints to be designed and manufactured by defendant contained the following provision: "These expansion joints are to be designed and guaranteed to take up both the axial and lateral deflections existing between the respective vessels connected by the expansion joints without imposing an axial force on the ductwork exceeding 2000# or a lateral force exceeding (to be specified later). The physical layout of the equipment and the temperatures involved will be as indicated on the marked prints of Swenson Drg. U29116 Issue I and U29117 Issue 1." Defendant designed and manufactured these expansion joints which were shipped to Davison Chemical Corp., at Lake Charles, Louisiana for which plaintiff was building and installing three spray dryers. After several months of operating the spray dryers, Davison Chemical Corp. reported to plaintiff on June 9, 1953 that one of the joints had developed a leak. By letter of October 6, 1953 plaintiff notified defendant of the leakage in the joints. Plaintiff subsequently designed and installed new joints. There were various examinations, reports and correspondence by the parties but no agreement was reached as to the responsibility for the failure of the joints, and this suit was brought.

The case was tried before the district court sitting without a jury. The district court found that the design of the joints was the responsibility of the defendant; that the joints had failed under the conditions under which they were actually operated; that the evidence tended to support one or another of two suggested causes of the failure, (1) lack of sufficient structural strength to withstand the strain of normal operations, or (2) unexpected and abnormal strain because of pulsating pressure; that if the latter were the cause of failure, defendant would not be liable; and that plaintiff had the burden of proof of the cause of the failure of the joints, but had not sustained that burden.

Appellant contends (1) that the district court erred in ruling that defendant would not be liable if the cause of the failure of the expansion joints was the unexpected and abnormal strain of pulsating pressure, (2) that there is an implied warranty of fitness for plaintiff's purpose under Mass.Gen.Laws, ch. 106, § 17(1) (Ter.Ed.1932)¹ since plaintiff informed defendant of the purpose of the joints and relied on defendant as an expert in the design and manufacture of expansion joints, (3) that the district court erred in placing on plaintiff the burden of proof of the cause of the failure of the expansion joints and (4) that the notice of breach was given within a reasonable time. Appellee contends (1) that there is no implied warranty in this case since there was an express warranty relating to the same subject matter, (2) that the notice of the alleged breach was not timely, and (3) that otherwise the rulings and conclusions of the district court are correct. The parties agree that Massachusetts law on warranties applies here.

We believe that the ruling of the district court that defendant would not be liable if the cause of the failure was pulsating pressure is correct in regard to the express warranty given by the defendant. There is no guarantee to withstand pulsating pressure in the express warranty set forth in the order which was accepted by defendant. The district court did not make a finding that the joints were expressly warranted to withstand a maximum pressure equal to 15 inches of water. However, both appellant and appellee in their briefs regard the maximum pressure specification, which was set forth apparently subsequent to the order, as a warranty that the joints would withstand pressure equal to 15 inches of water. Even when viewed as part of the warranty, however, we believe that the correct interpretation of the pressure warranty does not cover pulsating pressure. The uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff's witnesses was that plaintiff did not anticipate pulsating pressure. Neither did defendant. "Every instrument in writing, although it cannot be varied or controlled by extrinsic evidence, must be interpreted with a view to all the material circumstances of the parties at the time of its execution, in the light of the pertinent facts within the knowledge of those who signed it * * *." Eustace v. Dickey, 1921, 240 Mass. 55, 72, 132 N.E. 852, 857. Therefore, we do not believe the term "pressure" should be interpreted to include pulsating pressure that neither party had reason to anticipate.

The district court uses language which might indicate that it found that an implied warranty of fitness for purpose existed in addition to the express warranty given. The court stated in its opinion: "Plaintiff has not shown by the greater weight of the evidence that the failure of the expansion joints was due to a deficiency in the designing or construction of these joints by which they failed to meet the guarantees given by defendant or were unsuitable for the use for which defendant knew they were intended under conditions of operation which defendant knew or should have foreseen." (emphasis added) Appellee contends, however, that since the express warranty relates to the same subject matter as would the implied...