American MacHine & Tool Co. v. Strite-Anderson Manufacturing Co.

353 N.W.2d 592, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 54, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3318
CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 17, 1984
DocketC1-83-1205, C3-83-1206 and C4-81-691
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 353 N.W.2d 592 (American MacHine & Tool Co. v. Strite-Anderson Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American MacHine & Tool Co. v. Strite-Anderson Manufacturing Co., 353 N.W.2d 592, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 54, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3318 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

American Machine and Tool Company sued Strite-Anderson Manufacturing Company to recover for dies and inserts purchased by Strite-Anderson. Strite-Ander-sori counterclaimed for damages for nondelivery or late delivery. The jury found for American Machine on its claim and against Strite-Anderson on the counterclaim.

Strite-Anderson moved for judgment not withstanding the verdict on the issue of American Machine’s liability on the counterclaim and for a new trial on damages. Alternatively, Strite-Anderson sought a new trial on all issues. The trial court denied the motions. Strite-Anderson appealed to the Court of Appeals and petitioned for discretionary review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the case and remanded it to this court. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Strite-Anderson is a die-cast manufacturer. Respondent American Machine is a now defunct machine shop which made tooling for die-casters. The two companies dealt with each other for almost 20 years. American Machine was Strite-An-derson’s primary tool supplier.

In May 1976, American Machine announced its liquidation. Carl Berg, founder of American Machine, told Strite-Ander-son that the company would complete orders in progress, but would not accept any new orders.

In October 1976, as part of its efforts to wind up business, American Machine sued Strite-Anderson for payment for dies and inserts. Strite-Anderson counterclaimed for damages for non-delivery and late delivery. The jury, by special verdict, found for American Machine on its claim and against Strite-Anderson on its counterclaim.

Purchase Orders Covered by Claim and Counterclaim

Six purchase orders involving six Little Mac dies, 16 Little Mac inserts and six Double Mac dies are at issue on appeal. Delivery information for these orders is summarized below.

*595

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc.
672 N.W.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2003)
C-Thru Container Corp. v. Midland Manufacturing Co.
533 N.W.2d 542 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1995)
Nordale, Inc. v. Samsco, Inc.
830 F. Supp. 1263 (D. Minnesota, 1993)
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. Mills-Winfield Engineering Sales, Inc.
436 N.W.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1989)
Larson v. Anderson, Taunton & Walsh, Inc.
379 N.W.2d 615 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
Danielson v. Johnson
366 N.W.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
353 N.W.2d 592, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 54, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-machine-tool-co-v-strite-anderson-manufacturing-co-minnctapp-1984.