Atkinson Industries, Inc. v. Yacht My Jan

651 F.2d 936
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 1981
DocketNos. 80-1464, 80-1465
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 651 F.2d 936 (Atkinson Industries, Inc. v. Yacht My Jan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atkinson Industries, Inc. v. Yacht My Jan, 651 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1981).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Edward and Janice Germano authorized Atkinson Industries, Inc. to paint and repair their yacht MY JAN. When the work was near completion the Germanos were notified that full payment of the bill for repairs was expected before MY JAN left the boatyard. It was thereafter agreed that the Germanos would pay $20,000 in cash, and execute two promissory notes for $8,517 each, which they did and the boat was released to them. Shortly thereafter the engines began to malfunction. The yacht was returned to the boatyard, where it was discovered that diesel fuel had been put into MY JAN’s fuel tanks, and as a consequence the engines would need. extensive repairs. Repairs were made and the Germanos were billed an additional amount. Upon refusal of the Germanos to pay the two promissory notes and the additional amount claimed for repairs, Atkinson Industries, Inc. brought suit alleging an admiralty and maritime claim under Rule 9(h), Fed.R.Civ.P., to collect on the two notes and subsequent billings. The Germanos in their answer claimed that they had not authorized all of the work done on their yacht, that the execution of the two notes was under duress, and counterclaimed for damages for the alleged negligence of Atkinson in repairs of the engines of their yacht.

The district court found for Atkinson on the two promissory notes, and the counterclaim, and for the Germanos on the claim for the additional work.

After consideration of the record and briefs in this case, we would affirm the findings of liability of the Germanos as made by the district court as not clearly erroneous, but remand the question of the denial of interest for a statement of the reasons for such disallowance.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
651 F.2d 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-industries-inc-v-yacht-my-jan-ca4-1981.