Textile v. BMH

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 09:59, January 16, 2024 by DeRien (talk | contribs) (DeRien moved page Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH and Company, Inc. to Textile v. BMH: shorten)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Textile v. BMH
Court 9th Circuit
Citation 240 F.3d 781
Date decided February 14, 2001

Facts

  • Textile Unlimited, Inc. = "Textile" = plaintiff = yarn buyer
  • A..BMH and Company, Inc. = "BMH" = defendant = yarn seller
  • Over a 10-month period, Textile bought yarn from BMH in 38 transactions
  • Textile would send purchase orders to BMH which would send back invoices
  • The invoices of BMH would include contract terms differing from the purchase orders of Textile
  • The invoices of BMH stipulated that the acceptance of its yarn product would mean that Textile was accepting the terms of the sale (which contradicted the purchase orders of Textile)
  • Additionally, BMH invoices specified that disputes of the sales would have to be arbitrated in Atlanta, Georgia
  • When 1 shipment contained defective yarns, Textile refused to remunerate BMH

Procedural History

  • BMH submitted its dispute to arbitration because Textile hadn't paid for its yarn shipment
  • Textile sued BMH in a federal district court in the Central District of California to prohibit ("enjoin") the arbitration
  • BMH lost in the district court in California
  • BMH appealed to the 9th Circuit

Issues

In a contract implied by conduct under the UCC, will additional terms on which the parties don't agree drop out of the contract?

Holding

  • Yes. In a contract implied by conduct under the UCC, additional terms on which the parties don't agree will drop out of the contract.
  • The district court in California didn't abuse its discretion in enjoining the arbitration.

Judgment

Affirmed

Reasons

Judge Thomas: The BMH invoice = counter-offer != acceptance

Rule

  • UCC § 2-207 governs contract interpretation when the contracting parties have exchange conflicting forms.
  • The UCC doesn't have any arbitration provisions.
  • In contrast, the last-shot rule of the common law is in contradiction of the UCC when it comes to the "battle of the forms."

Resources