For Your Data Page County Appliance Center, Inc. V. Honeywell, Inc. Illustration Brief
February 04, 2002
Edit
Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. representative brief summary
347 N.W.2d 171 (Iowa 1984)
CASE FACTS
The appliance shop filed a case for nuisance in addition to tortious interference alongside prospective concern payoff against a manufacturer in addition to a vendor that provided electronic services to a go way because i of the manufacturer's computers placed at the go way generated interference alongside goggle box sets displayed for sale yesteryear the appliance store. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 jury flora for the appliance shop against the manufacturer in addition to vendor on both theories, in addition to awarded compensatory in addition to punitive damages. The trial courtroom awarded an indemnity judgment for the vendor against the manufacturer.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed in addition to remanded to the trial courtroom alongside instructions to railroad train aside the judgment inwards favor of the appliance shop in addition to the judgment inwards favor of the vendor, in addition to granted a novel trial.
Recommended Supplements in addition to Study Aids for Property Law
347 N.W.2d 171 (Iowa 1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, go agency, manufacturer, in addition to electronic service vendor (vendor), sought review of the judgment of the Iowa District Court for Page County, which awarded appellee appliance shop compensatory in addition to punitive damages for nuisance in addition to tortious interference alongside concern relations. The manufacturer every bit good sought review of the trial courtroom judgment that awarded indemnification to the vendor on its cross-claim.CASE FACTS
The appliance shop filed a case for nuisance in addition to tortious interference alongside prospective concern payoff against a manufacturer in addition to a vendor that provided electronic services to a go way because i of the manufacturer's computers placed at the go way generated interference alongside goggle box sets displayed for sale yesteryear the appliance store. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 jury flora for the appliance shop against the manufacturer in addition to vendor on both theories, in addition to awarded compensatory in addition to punitive damages. The trial courtroom awarded an indemnity judgment for the vendor against the manufacturer.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom held that:
- (1) the motions for directed verdict should accept been granted because the appliance shop did non innovate substantial bear witness of a operate to hurt or destroy the appliance shop on the claim of tortious interference alongside prospective concern advantage;
- (2) on the record, a jury termination was generated on the manufacturer's liability for punitive damages, exactly non on the vendor's liability;
- (3) the contract betwixt the vendor in addition to the manufacturer waived the vendor's correct to indemnity; and
- (4) the inquiry of whether the appliance shop devoted its premises to an unusually sensitive use.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed in addition to remanded to the trial courtroom alongside instructions to railroad train aside the judgment inwards favor of the appliance shop in addition to the judgment inwards favor of the vendor, in addition to granted a novel trial.
Recommended Supplements in addition to Study Aids for Property Law