Legal Opinion

Honeywell, Inc. v. Bel Air Corp.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 30, 1987No. 86-380PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHORES, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Honeywell, Inc. (hereinafter “Honeywell”), from the denial of its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, alternatively, for a new trial.

The ease arose from the mechanical failure of an air conditioning unit owned by the plaintiff, Bel Air Corporation (hereinafter “Bel Air”). Under a service agreement with Bel Air, Honeywell maintained and serviced the unit, which is located atop the Sears, Roebuck & Company store at Bel Air Mall. The contract contained the following pertinent provisions:

“I. PLANNED PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
“Pla…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. A. A. Spurlin, Surviving Parent of Douglas J. Spurlin, a Minor, Deceased v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  2. Hanson v. CouchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1978
  3. Ragland v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
  4. McLarty v. WrightCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1975
  5. Adams v. Travelers Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1986

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lewis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2003
  2. Curtis v. Faulkner UniversitySupreme Court of Alabama · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API