Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Litton Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 1984No. 197Published

1DissentHester, Judge

The grossly-oversimplified issue in this matter is “Did the parties intend to make a contract?” Better stated, Did Bethlehem and Litton1 intend to enter into an option agreement, whereby Bethlehem would have the right to exercise its option to order as many as five one thousand foot self-unloading ore vessels at any time during a five yeár period? Following a non-jury trial which lasted approximately nine months and which involved in excess of twelve thousand pages of testimony and five hundred exhibits, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Senior Judge Maurice Louik specially…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Blackhawk Heat. & P. Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1974
  2. GOLDMAN v. McShainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Field v. Golden Triangle Broadcasting, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Stauffer v. StaufferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. Melo-Sonics Corporation and Southwest Oil Corporation v. David Cropp, Chalmers C. Jordan, Robert W. Lingo and Glass-Tite Industries, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API