· 6/7/1909

Woodward-Wight & Co. v. Engel Land & Lumber Co.

Citations

123 La. 1093
49 So. 719
1909 La. LEXIS 825

Syllabus

1. Sales (§ 166*) — Sale of Machinery — Duty to Remedy Defects. Where machinery, purchased for particular use, is so defective in design or construction, or both, as to be incapable of rendering the service •contemplated by the contract, the obligation rests upon the vendor to ascertain the nature of the defects and to cure them. [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 394; Dec. Dig. § 166.*] ■2. Prescription — Reconventional Demand —Ignorance of Grounds of Action. In a case where machinery has been sold which proves to be defective in design or construction, but the exact nature of the defects in which is a matter of dispute, determinable only by expert opinion, and where the vendor, after repeated efforts, abandons the attempt to cure such defects, the prescription of the action, brought by way of reconventional demand, to .avoid the contract and recover the portion of the price paid, begins to run only when the vendee discovers that such defects are redhibitory and the vendor abandons his attempt to cure them. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. § 473; Dee. Dig. § 95.*] 3. Appeal and Error (§ 173*) — Presentation and Reservation of Grounds of Review — Questions Not Raised Below. Where a vendor of machinery sues upon notes given for a balance due on the contract price and is met by a demand, in reconvention, for the avoidance of the contract and the repetition of the amount already paid, upon the-ground that the machinery proved to be defective, such demand will not be dismissed, upon an objection, urged for the first time in this court, that no tender has been made of the machinery ; but the rights of the plaintiff, with respect to its return, as a condition precedent to the execution of the judgment for the repetition of the price, will be protected. [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 1085; Dec. Dig. § 173.*] (Syllabus by

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that the Calder effects test is inapplicable to promissory estoppel because the action does not sound in tort law.
Japanese-based Rakuten not subject to specific jurisdiction where its website, though highly interactive, did nothing to specifically target Pennsylvania citizens
“These companies’ functions are also not normal functions that Rakuten would perform, as a holding company.”
“A court exercises personal jurisdiction over a parent corporation through its personal jurisdiction over a subsidiary by way of the alter ego theory.”
\There is no law to support that a global holding company bootstraps itself into personal jurisdiction merely by proclaiming to the world that it is a holding company[.]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Monroe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.