Legal Opinion

Gender Machine Works, Inc. v. Eidal International Sales Corp.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 11, 1996No. 9210-07025 and 9212-08741; CA A87470PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Defendant Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) appeals a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Gender Machine Works (Gender) in an action for breach of contract. Gender cross-appeals from those aspects of the judgment that reduced its recovery through various offsets. We affirm on the appeal and affirm in part and reverse in part on the cross-appeal.

This case arises from ADM’s purchase of an industrial shredding machine and its alleged erroneous or misdirected payment for that machine. There are three “players”: plaintiff Gender, which was primarily responsible for building the shredder;…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Ross v. HardingWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Badger v. Paulson Investment Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Zehr v. HaugenOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Moser Paper Co. v. North Shore Publishing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Grillo v. Burke's Paint Company, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Blosch v. Natixis Real Estate Capital, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2013
  2. Lee Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Century Pacific Equity Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API