Empire MacHinery Co. v. Litton Business Telephone Systems
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
JACOBSON, Presiding Judge.
This is a contract action in which we are called upon to determine whether execution of a “home office acceptance” clause is the exclusive means by which a contract can be made binding.
This action was instituted by Empire Machinery Co. (Empire) against Litton Systems Co. and various divisions and subsidiary companies of Litton Systems Co. (collectively referred to as Litton) seeking damages for breach of a contract to install an “interconnect” telephone system for Empire’s use. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted judgment in favor of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Armour & Co. v. CelicCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- West Penn Power Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Albright v. Stegeman Motor Car Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Power Service Corporation v. JoslinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Ludowici-Celadon Co. v. McKinleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Deeco, Inc. v. 3-M CO.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1983
- Nu-Air Manufacturing Company v. Frank B. Hall & Co. Of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1987
- Synnex Corp. v. ADT SECURITY SERV. INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2007
- Rockwood Manufacturing Corp. v. Amp, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.