Legal Opinion

Authorized Supply Co. of Arizona v. Swift & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 21, 1960No. 16274PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We granted appellee Swift & Company’s petition for rehearing in order to consider such appellee’s contention that our decision reported in 271 F.2d 242 sanctions partial rescission of an indivisible, non-severable contract for the sale of goods.

Our conclusions in that opinion were predicated on the following statement which appears on page 244:

“It is clear from the pleadings, the evidence, and the plaintiff’s brief filed in this Court that plaintiff seeks recovery of damages against defendants only on a theory of breach of express and implied warranties of a contract for the sale of goods.”

We…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Crystal Recreation, Inc. v. Seattle Ass'n of Credit MenWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  2. United States v. San Francisco Electrical Contractors Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1944
  3. Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1953

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Mainland v. Alfred Brown CompanyNevada Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co.California Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Authorized Supply Company of Arizona, a Corporation v. Swift & Company, a Corporation Arizona York Refrigeration Company, a Corporation, and Southern Arizona York Refrigeration Company, a Corporation, Arizona York Refrigeration Company, a Corporation and Southern Arizona York Refrigeration Company, a Corporation v. Swift & Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API