Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Anodco, Inc. And American Bumper & Manufacturing Company, Inc., Cross-Appellants v. Reynolds Metals Company, Cross-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided September 12, 1984No. 82-1945, 83-1013, 83-1101 and 83-1102Published

1DissentCornelia G. Kennedy, Circuit Judge

Because I believe that the cancellation clause gave Reynolds the right to terminate the contract and that Reynolds did not waive reliance on it, I respectfully dissent.

The District Court refused to apply the cancellation clause of the purchase order apparently on the grounds that it was “a so-called boilerplate provision” whose application was questionable. The clause states that “Buyer may at its option cancel any unshipped merchandise or incompleted portion of this order at any time whether or not Seller is in default,” and that the buyer will pay the seller’s costs. Anodco argued in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. College Point Boat Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Ensign Painting Co. v. Alfred A. Smith, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API