Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Contracts Keyed to Kuney

Citation. 532 F.2d 957 (1976)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff contracted to buy planes from defendant. The agreement stated that defendant would excuse any delays caused by events outside of defendant’s control or fault. Due to some governmental jawboning manufacturers, defendant was not able to convey planes to plaintiff timely and so the defendant sued.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under an agreement that reasons conveyance delays caused by occasions passed the seller"s control or fault, including however not constrained to any governmental acts or priorities, the seller is pardoned from delays caused by informal government pressure to prioritize military over civilian production during wartime.

Facts.

In mid-1965, Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (Eastern) (plaintiff) contracted to buy planes from McDonnell Douglas Corp. (MDC) (defendant). The agreement pardoned MDC from conveyance delays caused by occasions outside of MDC"s fault or control, including but not limited to governmental acts or priorities. Throughout the following two years, the United States profoundly expanded its military inclusion in Vietnam. The Defense Production Act enabled the government to require that manufacturers prioritize military production over civilian obligations. Formal orders under the demonstration were occasionally given. Rather, the government typically “jawboned” manufacturers through informal requests issued under threat of a formal directive.  In this way, the administration encouraged MDC to organize military production, which it did. Therefore, MDC did not convenient convey planes to Eastern, which sued. A jury restored a decision for Eastern, and MDC appealed.

Issue.

Under an agreement that reasons conveyance delays caused by occasions past the seller"s control or fault including however not constrained to any governmental acts or priorities, is the seller pardoned from delays caused by informal government pressure to prioritize military over civilian production during wartime?

Held.

Yes. Under an agreement that reasons conveyance delays caused by occasions passed the seller"s control or fault, including however not constrained to any governmental acts or priorities, the seller is pardoned from delays caused by informal government pressure to prioritize military over civilian production during wartime.

Take Quick Topic Quiz

Discussion.

The agreement condition at issue has two segments: a general segment pardoning delays caused by unspecified occasions outside of MDC"s fault or control and a area pardoning delays caused by particularly recognized occasions. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-615 administers governs excusable delays of commercial deliveries unless the parties have consented to more stringent terms. Compliant with § 2-615, a postponement is pardoned if execution is made impracticable by an unexpected occasion that was not thought about at the season of contracting. That area and its prerequisite of unforeseeability are appropriate to the general segment of the parties" understandable postpone condition. Accordingly, the court translates that general segment as pardoning defers that are not predictable unless owing to MDC"s fault or control. While foreseeability limits delays caused by unspecified occasions, the abundant point of reference builds up that foreseeability won"t restrict occasions that are particularly distinguished. Along these lines, the occasions distinguished here, including administrative acts and needs, constitute legitimate reasons for postpone paying little heed to their foreseeability. Applying the prior guidelines to the certainties of this case, the court holds that the informal policies implemented by the government constitute governmental acts and policies under the terms of the parties’ contract. The UCC and a long line of choices clarify that the substance of an administration government action—not its form—is determinative. In addition, the Defense Protection Act does not constrain implementation to formal orders. Accordingly, the government pressure to promote military production excused MDC’s late delivery as a matter of law. The judgment below is reversed.

See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following