You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Cesco Manufacturing Corp. v. Norcross, Inc.

Citations: 391 N.E.2d 270; 7 Mass. App. Ct. 837; 27 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 126; 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1227

Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; June 28, 1979; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a breach of contract between a manufacturer and a buyer over custom greeting card display racks. The plaintiff sought recovery under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) after the defendant ceased orders, leaving a significant number of racks undelivered. The trial began as a jury action but was resolved through a master’s report, which the defendant failed to refute. The trial court awarded damages under UCC § 2-708(2), as the calculated damages under § 2-708(1) were insufficient. The court found no contract modification in communications between the parties and rejected the defendant's claims of an established settlement. The trial judge deemed a contract clause unconscionable, which would have unfairly burdened the plaintiff with costs. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing that factual determinations could not be overturned absent clear error. Interest on damages was set to accrue from the writ date, aligning with statutory guidelines. Consequently, the judgment favoring the plaintiff was affirmed, reinforcing the UCC's role in ensuring equitable remedies for contractual breaches.

Legal Issues Addressed

Breach of Contract and Damages under UCC § 2-708(2)

Application: The court found the trial judge's application of UCC § 2-708(2) appropriate, as damages calculated under § 2-708(1) were insufficient to place the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been fulfilled.

Reasoning: Furthermore, under UCC 2-708(2), the trial judge found that the damages calculated under section 2-708(1) were insufficient to place the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been fulfilled, thus making 2-708(2) applicable.

Interest Accrual on Damages

Application: Interest was deemed to accrue from the date of the plaintiff's writ as supported by General Laws c. 231, § 6C.

Reasoning: However, General Laws c. 231, § 6C supports the plaintiff's position on this matter.

Interpretation of Contractual Modifications

Application: The court determined that the correspondence between the parties did not legally establish a modification of the contract, supporting the trial judge's findings.

Reasoning: The defendant contended that the contract was modified or a settlement reached... However, the letters cited by the defendant do not legally establish a modification.

Role of a Master's Report in Judicial Proceedings

Application: The master's report was treated as prima facie evidence, and the defendant failed to rebut the findings, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's decision.

Reasoning: The judge treated the master’s report as prima facie evidence and ruled that the defendant failed to rebut the findings.

Unconscionability under UCC § 2-302(1)

Application: The trial judge ruled that a clause in the purchase orders that would require the seller to absorb all costs if the buyer did not authorize delivery was unconscionable.

Reasoning: The judge ruled that interpreting the clause to require the seller to absorb all costs... would be unconscionable under UCC § 2-302(1).