William F. Goltz and Raymond F. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Sixth Circuit

William F. Goltz and Raymond F. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

261 F.2d 836, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3356

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1958

Docket13564_1

StatusPublished

This text of 261 F.2d 836 (William F. Goltz and Raymond F. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, a Delaware Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William F. Goltz and Raymond F. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, 261 F.2d 836, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3356 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this action for damages alleged to have been caused by ap-pellee’s breach of contract between the parties. The contract involved was an “Authorized Distributors Sales Agreement”, under which appellee, who was a manufacturer of air filter equipment, granted to appellant “the exclusive nonassignable franchise as authorized distributor for the sale of products manufactured or sold by the party of the first part to all classes of trade, except to manufacturers who purchase their products for use as original or accessory equipment, manufactured for resale, or to automotive jobbers and railroads for passenger car equipment, in the following described territory:”.

While the Agreement was in force, ap-pellee made direct sales to the R. C. Mahon Company, which Company was located within the territory allotted to appellant. Appellee made several defenses to the claim, the two principal ones being that all sales to R. C. Mahon Company were within the exceptions to the contract and that the alleged damages were speculative and unproven. The Dis- *837 triet Judge dismissed the action, explaining his ruling in a well-reasoned opinion. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 299.

We concur in the ruling of the District Judge for the reasons stated in said opinion.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this action for damages alleged to have been caused by ap-pellee’s breach of contract between the parties. The contract involved was an “Authorized Distributors Sales Agreement”, under which appellee, who was a manufacturer of air filter equipment, granted to appellant “the exclusive nonassignable franchise as authorized distributor for the sale of products manufactured or sold by the party of the first part to all classes of trade, except to manufacturers who purchase their products for use as original or accessory equipment, manufactured for resale, or to automotive jobbers and railroads for passenger car equipment, in the following described territory:”.

While the Agreement was in force, ap-pellee made direct sales to the R. C. Mahon Company, which Company was located within the territory allotted to appellant. Appellee made several defenses to the claim, the two principal ones being that all sales to R. C. Mahon Company were within the exceptions to the contract and that the alleged damages were speculative and unproven. The Dis- *837 triet Judge dismissed the action, explaining his ruling in a well-reasoned opinion. Goltz v. Air-Maze Corporation, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 299.

We concur in the ruling of the District Judge for the reasons stated in said opinion.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 F.2d 836, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-f-goltz-and-raymond-f-goltz-v-air-maze-corporation-a-delaware-ca6-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack