Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Systems, Inc.

636 F.2d 232

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-12-22
Topic
commercial

How later courts describe this case

  • buyer under a requirements contract was entitled to order reduced quantities highly disproportionate to a stated estimate if the reductions were done in good faith

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. v. Ponderosa Systems, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions
ANGELICA UNIFORM GROUP, v. PONDEROSA SYSTEMS,636 F.2d 232(8th Cir. 1980)
ANGELICA UNIFORM GROUP, INC., APPELLANT, v. PONDEROSA SYSTEMS, INC.,
APPELLEE.
No. 80-1280.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted December 10, 1980.
Decided December 22, 1980.
Jim J. Shoemake, G. Lane Roberts, Jr., Guilfoil, Symington, Petzall Shoemake, St. Louis, Mo., for Angelica Uniform Group, Inc.

Frank Hamsher, Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Elson Cornfeld, St. Louis, Mo., Roger Makley, Coolidge, Wall, Matusoff, Womsley Lombard, Dayton, Ohio, for Ponderosa Systems, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Angelica Uniform Group, Inc. (Angelica) appeals the district court's denial of their motion for new trial,487 F. Supp. 1374.

[2] Angelica brought suit against Ponderosa Systems, Inc. (Ponderosa) for an alleged breach of a requirements contract for the purchase of uniforms. On January 18, 1980, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

[3] Thereafter, Angelica moved for a new trial alleging, inter alia, that the district court erred in instructing the jury that it must find for Ponderosa unless Angelica had shown that Ponderosa reduced its requirements in bad faith. The district court denied the motion. The district court found that section 2-306(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (Mo.Rev.Stat. §400.2-306) has been interpreted as allowing a buyer under a requirements contract to order reductions which are highly disproportionate to a stated estimate, if such reductions are done in good faith.

[4] We have carefully studied the record, including the district court's opinion and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to appellant's arguments, and accordingly affirm on the basis of Judge HUNGATE'S opinion pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.Page 233