Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Duxor Investment Aktiengesellschaft v. Investment Rarities Inc.
Citations: 413 N.W.2d 502; 1987 Minn. LEXIS 818Docket: C8-87-495
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; September 28, 1987; Minnesota; State Supreme Court
Duxor Investment Aktiengesellschaft appealed against Investment Rarities, Inc. regarding nonpayment of six promissory notes related to the sale of molds, tools, trademarks, and intellectual property for the S-Box, a plastic box for audio cassettes. ITI counterclaimed for breach of warranty due to alleged design defects. During discovery, ITI sought to utilize depositions taken in Switzerland and Sweden, which Duxor's counsel objected to for not complying with Minnesota procedural rules. Duxor moved for summary judgment, claiming ITI failed to provide timely notice of the warranty breach, relying on U.S. depositions and exhibits. ITI opposed the motion, citing factual disputes and relying on the Swiss depositions. The trial court denied Duxor's summary judgment motion without findings and also denied ITI's motion to file the Swiss depositions, noting they were likely inadmissible due to improper administration of oaths. Duxor's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The trial court certified the case for immediate appeal but did not specify the question. The Supreme Court of Minnesota dismissed the appeal, citing deficiencies in the trial court's order and the Swiss depositions, and remanded the case for further consideration regarding the admissibility of the depositions and required specific findings if the trial court certifies the case again for appeal. The trial court is required to clearly articulate the legal question it seeks to certify for appellate review. Without this specification, the appellate court will not accept certified questions, as it would lead to speculation and potential advisory opinions. The trial court must provide a ruling and explanation before an appellate court can proceed. Rule 103.03(h) of the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure indicates that certification is intended for unusual and ambiguous issues; if there is sufficient legal authority on a matter, the trial court should continue with the case and the parties can appeal through standard procedures. Additionally, only Swiss depositions were submitted in the appeal, while Swedish depositions were neither filed nor utilized by the parties. Recent cases have indicated the need for this requirement, signaling that the legal community has been forewarned.