Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rrx Industries, Inc. v. Lab-Con, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 24, 1985No. 84-5573Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNorris, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority opinion except to the extent that it affirms the award of *548consequential and incidental damages by the district court. Given the plain language of the contract, the applicable California law, and the district court’s findings of fact, I would reverse the award of damages to the extent it exceeds the actual amount RRX paid Lab-Con for the software.

Because the consequential damages issue is essentially a dispute over the meaning of the contract, I begin with the contract itself. The relevant provision reads:

“4. Kelly [now Lab-Con] warrants that the software shall be free…

2Cases cited11 opinions

Ora Lee Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, William Thorne v. Walker-Thomas Furniture CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1965
A & M PRODUCE CO. v. FMC Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1982
S. M. Wilson & Company v. Smith International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
Earl M. Jorgensen Co. v. Mark Construction, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1975
Consolidated Data Terminals, a California Corporation, and Cross-Appellant v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., a Corporation, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983

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