Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Financial Services, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Financial Services, Inc.

217 F. App'x 259

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 15, 2007·No. 06-1488·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Orix Financial Services, Inc., an equipment leasing company, breached its contract to lease an industrial device known as a whirling machine to Fanczi Screw Company. We previously held that the contract between the parties included a limitations provision that “chos[e] New York state law, and prohibited] consequential and punitive damages.” Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., 114 Fed.Appx. 548, 553 (4th Cir.2004). Our previous opinion describes the facts of the relationship between the parties and the procedural history of this litigation, so we need not repeat these here. See id. at 550-52.

On remand, the district court concluded that: (1) Fanczi’s lost profits did not constitute actual damages under New York law; * and (2) by its plain language, a provision in the security agreement concerning the payment of attorney’s fees and interest provided rights only to the “Mortgagor” (defined in the Security Agreement as Orix) and not to the “Mortgagee” (defined as Fanczi).

*260 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we affirm for reasons well stated by the district court. Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 6:02-198-TLW, slip op. (D.S.C. July 26, 2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

Fanczi claims its actual damages should be measured as "the value of the very performance promised”—that is, the value of the lease agreement. However, Fanczi has conceded that the market value of the whirling machine was no different at the time of Orix’s breach than at the time of contracting, and so offered no basis before us or the district court for determining the value of the lease agreement other than lost profits.

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

PER CURIAM:

Orix Financial Services, Inc., an equipment leasing company, breached its contract to lease an industrial device known as a whirling machine to Fanczi Screw Company. We previously held that the contract between the parties included a limitations provision that “chos[e] New York state law, and prohibited] consequential and punitive damages.” Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., 114 Fed.Appx. 548, 553 (4th Cir.2004). Our previous opinion describes the facts of the relationship between the parties and the procedural history of this litigation, so we need not repeat these here. See id. at 550-52.

On remand, the district court concluded that: (1) Fanczi’s lost profits did not constitute actual damages under New York law; * and (2) by its plain language, a provision in the security agreement concerning the payment of attorney’s fees and interest provided rights only to the “Mortgagor” (defined in the Security Agreement as Orix) and not to the “Mortgagee” (defined as Fanczi).

*260 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we affirm for reasons well stated by the district court. Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 6:02-198-TLW, slip op. (D.S.C. July 26, 2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

Fanczi claims its actual damages should be measured as "the value of the very performance promised”—that is, the value of the lease agreement. However, Fanczi has conceded that the market value of the whirling machine was no different at the time of Orix’s breach than at the time of contracting, and so offered no basis before us or the district court for determining the value of the lease agreement other than lost profits.

Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Financial Services, Inc., 217 F. App'x 259 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

217 F. App'x 259 (Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Financial Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.