Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp. | 71 F.3d 1024 (1995) An air conditioner manufacturer sued a compressor supplier for breach of contract, seeking damages for a slew of different losses allegedly caused by the supplier’s breach. In Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., the Second Circuit had to decide whether the manufacturer’s claims were legitimate, or full of hot air. In January of 1988, Rotorex agreed to sell ten thousand, eight hundred compressors to Delchi Carrier SpA, an Italian air conditioner manufacturer, for use in a line of air conditioners which were scheduled to go on sale later that year. The contract was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods, or CISG. After Delchi received the first shipment, it discovered that the compressors didn’t conform to the sample model and accompanying specifications. The compressors had a lower cooling capacity and used more power. Delchi tried unsuccessfully to remedy the compressors. It then cancelled the contract. Delchi managed to obtain some suitable compressors by expediting an order from another supplier, Sanyo. However, Delchi couldn’t find substitutes for the entire order, causing decreased sales in the 1988 season. Delchi sued Rotorex for breach of contract, seeking damages for seven different losses. First, lost profits from diminished sales. Second, expenses incurred in attempting to remedy the nonconforming compressors. Third, the costs of expedited shipping for the Sanyo compressors. Fourth, the costs of handling and storing the rejected compressors. Fifth, costs for shipping, customs, and incidental expenses relating to the shipments of the Rotorex compressors. Sixth, the cost of insulation, tubing, and tooling that Delchi had purchased that were compatible only with Rotorex compressors. Seventh, labor costs for four days when Delchi’s production line was idle because no compressors were available to install. The trial court awarded Delchi $1.25 million in damages for the first four items, but denied recovery for the other three. Rotorex appealed, and Delchi cross appealed. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/delchi-carrier-spa-v-rotorex-corp The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/delchi-carrier-spa-v-rotorex-corp Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► /user/QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Category