United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
February 18, 2004.
HYTEL GROUP, INC., Plaintiff
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRY LEINENWEBER, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Hytel Group, Inc. (hereinafter, "Hytel") brings suit
against Defendant W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (hereinafter, "Gore").
Count I alleges that Gore breached its contract with Hytel by failing to
pay for a three-months supply of parts used by Hytel in constructing
subassemblies for Gore. Count II, pled in the alternative, makes the same
allegations under a promissory estoppel theory. Although not pled in the
complaint, Hytel also apparently seeks damages for Gore's failure to pay
other costs, such as labor and equipment, associated with Hytel's
production of subassemblies. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(c), Gore moves for summary judgment.
A. The Complaint
Hytel's complaint, never amended, narrowly specifies its allegations
against Gore. The complaint states that "this is a case in which
plaintiff . . . seeks payment of over $250,000 for
parts purchased by plaintiff to manufacture items for defendant pursuant
to an agreement that defendant would buy the parts or subassemblies
incorporating the parts." In defining damages, the complaint lists "8,666
boards of the RESA [Receiver Electrical Subassembly] and 11,543 TESA
[Transmitter Electrical Subassembly], Hytel purchased for Gore pursuant
to the August 23, 2001 Forecast." As such, Hytel's complaint never
alleges damages stemming from lost profits and assorted costs (i.e.,
overhead, labor and equipment) under either a breach of contract or a
promissory estoppel theory. Indeed, Hytel's complaint does not even
include the near-universal prayer for other relief that the Court deems
Nevertheless, beginning with Hytel's interrogatory answers and
continuing through deposition and motion practice, Hytel has consistently
argued that it suffered those damages. In doing so, Hytel gave Gore
notice of its intent to seek recovery for damages beyond the allegedly
unpaid-for parts. As Gore has not argued that Hytel's complaint pleads
itself out of this extra relief, the Court finds that Hytel's complaint
has been constructively amended to include any additional claims for
damages made by Hytel during the course of discovery.
B. Local Rule 56.1 Responses
Local Rule 56.1 of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Local Rule 56.1") establishes procedures that both
moving and opposing parties must follow in filing and responding to a
motion for summary judgment. Under
Local Rule 56.1, the moving party must submit a statement of material
facts with "references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other
supporting materials relied upon." Local Rule 56.1(a)(3). In turn, the
opposing party must file "a response to each numbered paragraph in the
moving party's statement," and, in the case of disagreement, provide
specific references to supporting evidentiary material. Local Rule
56.l(b)(3)(A). If the opposing party does not respond and controvert the
moving party's statement of material facts, those facts are deemed
admitted for the purposes of the motion. Local Rule 56.l(b)(3)(B); Smith
v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
In this case, Gore's paragraph 8 of its Local Rule 56.1 statement
Gore was under no obligation to issue forecasts. Gore
was also under no obligation to purchase finished
boards at any time. Gore's obligation was limited to
paying Hytel for material and supplies Hytel purchased
in reliance on Gore's three-month forecasts. Anything
Hytel did beyond that insofar as ordering parts for
subassemblies was concerned was at Hytel's sole risk
(internal citations omitted).
Hytel's response to paragraph eight states that it "disputes the
allegations contained in paragraph 8." However, Hytel does not
specifically refute with "specific references to supporting evidentiary
material" that "Gore was also under no obligation to purchase finished
boards at any time." Consequently, the Court deems this portion of
paragraph eight admitted.
Similarly, Hytel's responds to Gore's paragraph 22 by stating "Hytel
does not dispute the facts set forth in paragraph 22." Therefore, the
Court admits Gore's paragraph twenty-two statement that "profit was built
into the purchase price for finished goods."
C. Factual Background
Between 2000 and 2002, Gore engaged in the manufacture and sale of
fiber optic connectors comprising, in part, a RESA and a TESA. In early
2000, Gore selected Hytel as its supplier of these subassemblies. In
pitching the deal to Hytel, Gore representatives indicated that Gore's
demand for subassemblies would resemble a hockey stick. By this, Gore
meant that demand would start out low but rapidly shoot upward. Because
Hytel required a large lead-time to manufacture subassemblies (a process
that necessitated securing the necessary parts, labor and equipment),
Gore agreed to provide Hytel with six-month forecasts of its expected
Although Gore never promised to purchase specific quantities of
subassemblies, it admits agreeing to reimburse Hytel for up to a
three-month supply of parts, if Hytel bought in reliance on Gore's demand
forecasts and the forecasts exceeded the actual demand. Gore claims its
agreement with Hytel was a written contract memorialized in a series of
February 15, 2001 e-mails between Gore and Hytel officers. Under this
agreement, Gore acknowledges it owes Hytel for 505 RESA parts and 2,900
TESA parts. However, Gore claims that its contract obligations are
limited only to paying for these parts, and denies ever agreeing to pay
other costs such as overhead and labor. Similarly, Gore denies ever
making Hytel any unambiguous promises concerning future orders. As such,
Gore contends that any money Hytel expended beyond the three-month parts
supply was at Hytel's own risk and not in obligation of any contract or
in reliance upon any promise.
Conversely, Hytel denies that the February 15, 2001 e-mails accurately
describe the contract in its entirety, and alleges that a preceding oral
agreement with Gore entitles it to more than just payment for a
three-month supply of parts. In addition to parts, Hytel contends that
Gore orally agreed to pay costs such as labor and overhead expended in
reliance on Gore's forecast. Although Hytel concedes that the contract
called for it to factor profit into the purchase price for the finished
boards, Hytel also asks the Court to award lost profits damages.
Additionally, Hytel challenges the methodology Gore uses to calculate
its parts-cost liability. By Hytel's reckoning, the contract required it
to purchase parts beyond the three-month forecast, to ensure a constant
one-month "safety stock" was always available to Gore. Hytel also spars
with Gore regarding whether "backlog" should be factored into Gore's
parts-debt to it. The result is that, in their interrogatory answers,
Hytel claims contract damages of $480,962.40. This includes $183,347.28
worth of lost profits, $258,856.12 in material costs, $14,520 in labor
costs, and $24, 239 in incidental damages such as unemployment taxes paid
as a result of breach-induced layoffs.
Lastly, Hytel claims that Gore made numerous unambiguous promises
regarding the size and value of future orders. In reliance, Hytel
contends that it expended $483,646.03 purchasing new equipment, and
$125,000.00 in unbilled engineering services that it expected to recoup
over through sales of completed subassemblies. Accordingly, Hytel also
seeks $606,646.00 in reliance damages.
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A fact is "material" if it could
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law; a dispute is
"genuine" where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The burden is initially upon the movant to demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). In assessing the movant's claim, the court must view all the
evidence and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Miller v. Am.
Family Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997, 1003 (7th Cir. 2000). Once the moving
party has met
its burden, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations"
contained in its pleading, but rather "must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e);
Becker v. Tenenbaum-Hill Assoc., Inc., 914 F.2d 107, 110 (7th Cir. 1990);
Schroeder v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 875 F.2d 613, 620 (7th Cir.
1989). It "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus, Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Accordingly, summary judgment is
mandatory "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and
on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477
U.S. at 322. In such a situation, there can be "`no genuine issue as to
any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all
other facts immaterial." Id. at 323.
B. Count I: Breach of Contract
1. Contract Standards
In settling contract disputes, a federal court should look to the state
law that governed the formation of the contract. Gibson v. Neighborhood
Health Clinics, Inc., 121 F.3d 1126, 1130 (7th Cir. 1997). In this
action, the Court presumes that the law of Illinois applies, since this
case was filed in Illinois, Hytel is an
Illinois corporation, and Gore's reply memorandum refers to Illinois as
the appropriate sovereign.
Under Illinois law, a plaintiff seeking relief for breach of an oral
contract bears the burden to both plead and prove the essential terms of
the agreement sued on; that is, the offer made and its acceptance. Richco
Plastic Co. v. IMS Co., 288 Ill. App.3d 782, 786 (App. Div. 1997). As
with any contract, the offer "must be so definite as to its material
terms or require such definite terms in the acceptance that the promises
and performances to be rendered are reasonably certain." Rose v.
Mavrakis, 278 Ill. Dec. 751, 755 (App. Div. 2003).
2. Written or Oral Contract?
Gore contends that it had a written contract with Hytel, requiring it
to purchase up to three months' worth of parts should its purchase orders
fall below the midpoint forecasts it issued to Hytel. Gore contends this
contract was formalized in its entirety in a series of February 15, 2001
e-mails. In these e-mails, Gore officer Christopher Dohl ("Dohl")
cautioned Hytel that he believed Hytel was ordering too many raw boards,
and reminded Hytel that "Gore agrees to purchase any boards brought to
forecast for 2 months. This was agreed upon at our meeting on 9/27."
Hytel officer Kevin Ledvina responded by stating that he recalled Hytel
President Dirk McCoy ("McCoy") insisting upon a minimum of three months'
protection. Dohl then answered with a warning that Hytel was still
ordering to the maximum forecast, not the agreed upon
midpoint forecast. McCoy then replied to Dohl, writing that "Gore's
direction was very clear order to the midpoint of the forecast,
consistent with our lead times. If we order beyond that, we are doing so
at our sole risk." Dohl sent the final e-mail, remarking that McCoy's
position "Sounds good, Thanks for the clarity, and insured confidence of
continual board supply."
Hytel argues that these e-mails do not memorialize the entire
agreement, but merely clarify an apparent ambiguity in the
previously-made contract. Hytel notes that the e-mails do not preclude, or
even discuss, the possibility that Gore also bore responsibility for
overhead and labor costs. Indeed, Hytel points out that the e-mails
themselves refer specifically only to raw boards, not even other parts
and raw materials to which Gore fully concedes it owes payment.
On this point, Hytel is correct. The e-mails do not contain a formal
offer or an acceptance, and therefore cannot function as a contract.
Indeed, the e-mails themselves refer to a September 27 (presumably
referring to September 27, 2000) agreement, implying that the parties
formed a contract on that date. In addition, the e-mails discuss only
Gore's liability for boards, omitting any discussion of other parts and
raw materials to which Gore fully concedes liability. Thus, it is clear
that the e-mails intend merely to clarify one particular aspect of the
previously agreed-upon contract.
That being said, the only evidence Hytel presents of any agreement
comes via deposition testimony of McCoy and Hytel Chief Executive Officer
Scott Johansen ("Johansen"), who both testify that the agreement arose in
oral discussions with Gore officials. Thus, for purposes of summary
judgment, the Court will assume that the purported contract existed in
oral form prior to the February 15, 2001 e-mails. This means that while
the Court acknowledges that the e-mails provide evidence of certain
aspects of the Hytel-Gore contract, it does not hold that the e-mails
record the entire contract.
3. Lost Profits
In paragraph eight of its Local Rule 56.1 Statement, Gore contends that
"Gore was also under no obligation to purchase finished boards at any
time." In paragraph twenty-two, Gore states that "profit was built into
the purchase price for finished goods." As Hytel failed to dispute to
either statement, the Court deems both admitted. This means that, for
purposes of this motion, the contract stipulated that Hytel factored
profit into the purchase price for the finished boards, which Gore had no
obligation to purchase. It therefore follows that the contract gave Hytel
had no legal expectation of profit. Accordingly, Gore meets its initial
summary judgment burden on the issue of lost profits.
Hytel responds by arguing that "there is a substantial amount of
evidence . . . that indicates Hytel understood that Gore would be
liable for all costs (including profit) associated with its
forecasts and safety stock." However, Hytel cites no evidence or
deposition testimony supporting this position. Hytel also asks the Court
to grant it lost profits by reading in § 2-708(2) of the Uniform
Commercial Code into the contract. This provision is designed to place
"the seller in as good a position as performance would have done,"
providing him with lost profits and incidental damages. The difficulty
with Hytel's use of § 2-708(2) is the fact that, as shown above,
Hytel had no legal right to profit and therefore the UCC cannot
convey such a right. The UCC imputes terms only when the contract is
silent or there has been no meeting of the minds on the disputed issue,
such as in a classic "battle of the forms." It does not rewrite existing
contracts with legally definite terms.
The Court finds that Gore meets its initial summary judgment burden on
the issue of lost profits, and that Hytel fails to meet its responsive
burden. The Court thus grants summary judgment to Gore on the Count I
issue of lost profits.
4. Labor and Incidental Costs
Gore also contests Hytel's prayer for repayment of labor and incidental
costs, claiming that its agreement with Hytel excluded them. However,
Gore substantiates its position with only out-of-context and misleading
citations to the record. For instance, Gore supports its claim that the
contract shields it from responsibility for labor and incidental costs by
referring to the February 15, 2001 McCoy's e-mail, which states "if
[Hytel] order[s] beyond [the
three-month lead time], we are doing so at our sole risk." On its face,
the e-mail limits simply Gore's liability for parts to three-months. It
does not address the question of who bears the risk for labor and
incidental costs. Similarly, Gore's use of selective quotes from McCoy's
and Johansen's deposition testimony also fails to support its argument.
When read in context, both these depositions factually dispute Gore's
claim of no liability for labor and incidental costs. As the movant in
this summary judgment proceeding, Gore bears the burden of initially
establishing the absence of material facts. On this issue, Gore has
failed to do so. Therefore, Gore has failed to shift the burden to
Hytel, and the Court cannot dispose of this issue through summary
5. Equipment and Engineering
Although Hytel also seeks damages for the purchase of equipment, McCoy
admitted in deposition that Gore "did not agree to give [Hytel] cash up
front" for the equipment. Rather, Hytel claims that equipment costs
"factored into our price" for finished product. Additionally, McCoy noted
that Hytel agreed to buy the equipment only because "Chris Dohl said,
`You have to buy this equipment because out ramp-up is coming, the volume
is looking huge." Similarly, Hytel does not allege that the contract
required Gore to finance engineering costs. Based on the presented
evidence, Hytel makes only a promissory estoppel claim for equipment and
engineering costs and not a breach of contract
claim. Therefore, the Court addresses these issues solely under Count
II's promissory estoppel framework.
6. Safety Stock
Hytel contends that, in addition to the three months worth of
materials, labor, and incidental costs, Gore also agreed to pay for one
month's worth of "safety stock." Gore disputes this, insisting that its
liability is limited to three months' worth of materials and that its
requests for "safety stock" were factored into higher initial purchase
Though, as the Court earlier found, the February 15, 2001 e-mail
exchange does not memorialize the entire agreement, it does seem to
preclude Hytel's claims regarding the safety stock. As noted above, McCoy
admitted in the e-mail that "If we order beyond our lead times, we are
doing so at our sole risk. . . . Our total lead time is 12 weeks." McCoy
thereby implicitly recognized that Gore bore no liability for safety
stock materials as anything Hytel did beyond twelve weeks fell "at our
sole risk." Additionally, a July 18, 2001 Dohl e-mail to Hytel stated
that "we would like to hold 1 month of safety stock in house as well as
the demand that you see on the attachment" (emphasis added). By informing
Hytel that Gore would hold the safety stock "in house," this Dohl e-mail
confirms Gore's contention that the safety stock discussions related to
Gore initially placing more purchase orders rather than Hytel maintaining
a perpetual excess supply of raw material.
Hytel attempts to refute this evidence by references to its executives'
deposition testimony, where Johansen and McCoy parrot Hytel's
interpretation of safety stock. In doing so, Hytel essentially argues
that the one-month safety stock agreement formed a portion of the oral
agreement it made with Gore. Since Gore has met its initial summary
judgment burden of showing no issue of material fact, Hytel must rebut by
showing "specific facts" evidencing this oral agreement. This it fails to
do. Hytel points to no specific conversations in which it claims Gore
promised to pay for safety stock in addition to the three-months parts
supply. Nor does Hytel give a specific recitation of Gore's alleged offer
to pay for safety stock in this manner. Hytel certainly presents nothing
to refute the clear written evidence found in the e-mails. Accordingly,
Hytel cannot withstand summary judgment on this issue.
7. Damage Calculation
Although agreeing in principle on Gore's liability for three-months of
materials, Hytel and Gore spar over the damages resulting from that
liability. One of their disputes, settled above in Gore's favor, concerns
whether Gore bears additional responsibility for safety stock. However,
the resolution of the safety stock question does not end the parties'
bickering over the materials and parts damage calculation. Rather, the
parties also dispute the issue of "backlog."
The backlog disagreement concerns subassemblies that Hytel contends
Gore ordered before the August 23, 2001 forecast and that
Hytel had already manufactured, but not shipped to Gore. Hytel argues
that the August 23, 2001 forecast concerns only subassemblies not yet
ordered by Gore. Gore responds by stating that the August 23, 2001
forecast was all-inclusive of its requirements and included
subassemblies it had ordered but not received prior to that date. In the
Court's view, this is a clear factual dispute inappropriate for summary
C. Count II: Promissory Estoppel
1. Promissory Estoppel Standards
Under Illinois Law, a party may plead both plead breach of contract and
promissory estoppel in the alternative, as Hytel does here. Czerska v.
United Airlines, Inc., 292 F. Supp.2d 1102 (N.D.111. 2003). However, a
fact-finder's determination that the parties agreed to an enforceable
contract precludes recovery under promissory estoppel. Id. This occurs
only when "the performance which is said to satisfy the requirement of
detrimental reliance is the same performance which supplies consideration
for the contract." Prentice v. UDC Advisory Services, Inc.,
271 Ill. App.3d 505, 512 (App. Div. 1995). However, should a contract's
terms be ambiguous or unknown "the absence of fully detailed terms would
. . . discourage dismissing the promissory estoppel claims." Tibor
Machine Products, Inc. v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership,
942 F. Supp. 1165, 1174 (N.D. Ill. 1996), partially vac'd on other
grounds 967 F. Supp. 1006 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Here,
Hytel's contract with Gore clearly imposed liability on Gore for
the costs of three months' worth of materials, and clearly absolved Gore
of responsibility for covering lost profits and safety stock. Therefore,
the Count I breach of contract claim covers each of these issues,
preventing their resolution via the Count II promissary estoppel claim.
Likewise, should a jury determine that Hytel's contract with Gore either
covers or excludes labor, incidental, equipment and engineering costs,
such a finding would bar a promissary estoppel claim on those issues.
However, as a jury could determine that the contract did not assign
liability for these costs, the Court discusses below whether the
promissory estoppel claims for each cost, in turn, can withstand summary
To establish a promissory estoppel claim on these issues, Hytel must
show that: 1) the defendant made an unambiguous promise to the plaintiff;
2) the plaintiff relied on the promise; 3) the plaintiff's reliance was
expected and foreseeable by the defendant; and 4) the plaintiff relied on
the promise to her detriment. Pokora v. Warehouse Direct, Inc.,
322 Ill. App.3d 870, 879 (App. Div. 2001).
2. Labor and Incidental Costs
As discussed earlier, Gore fails to establish any material facts
disputing the proposition that it promised to pay for labor and
incidental costs. Instead, it relies only on out-of-context quotes from
the February 15, 2001 e-mails and from McCoy's and
Johansen's depositions that when read in context show no denial of
such a promise. Consequently, Gore fails to meet its minimum summary
judgment burden of showing that no material facts are in dispute. As
such, to the extent that Hytel makes a promissory estoppel claim for
labor and incidental costs (its brief states "there is sufficient
evidence in the record to establish a claim for promissory estoppel based
upon the same allegations made in Count I," but never explicitly lays out
a promissory estoppel-based labor and incidental cost claim), this claim
withstands summary judgment.
3. Equipment Costs
Gore contests Hytel's promissory estoppel claim for equipment and
engineering costs on several grounds. First, Gore again argues that the
February 15, 2001 e-mails constitute a valid written contract limiting
its liability to just three-months worth of materials cost. Because the
Court rejects this position, Gore's argument here fails.
Gore also contends that any alleged promises made to Hytel cannot
withstand the tests of unambiguity and reliance. Gore argues that its
only quasi-promise to Hytel consisted of talking about the "hockey
stick"-shaped demand. Gore also states that its hockey stick-comparison
occurred before it even selected Hytel as its supplier and therefore,
prior to it having any obligations to Hytel whatsoever. Thus, in Gore's
view, even if the Court finds
that its "hockey stick" comparisons qualify as an unambiguous promise,
Hytel could not have reasonably relied on it.
Gore also argues that other factors compel a finding of no reliance.
Gore notes that Hytel purchased most of the equipment prior to being
selected as Gore's supplier of subassemblies. Ergo, Gore contends that
Hytel bought the equipment not out of reliance on any Gore promise, but
rather to entice Gore to select it instead of a competitor for the
subassembly contract. Furthermore, Gore insists that Hytel could use most
of the equipment for purposes beyond its contract with Gore.
Hytel disputes Gore's version of the facts concerning both ambiguity
and reliance. First, Hytel contends that Gore's promises to it were more
specific than references to "hockey stick" shaped demand. Hytel notes
and Gore fails to dispute that the phrase "hockey stick" meant that
demand would start out slow but then sharply accelerate. Hytel claims
that Gore promised hockey stick-demand both before and repeatedly it
became Gore's supplier. Hytel also claims that Dohl specifically told
McCoy "you have to buy this equipment because our ramp-up is coming, the
volume is looking huge. . . . I guarantee [Hytel] will need this
equipment." In Hytel's view, it purchased this equipment "based on the
lots and lots of parts they said they were going to buy," then found
itself stuck with useless equipment when Gore stopped ordering
As to the issue of reliance, Hytel acknowledges most of Gore's
allegations, but contends that it purchased at least one "Finetech"
machine subsequent to commencing its relationship with Gore, and in
response to Gore's alleged promises. Additionally, although Hytel admits
that although most of the equipment theoretically could serve other
purposes, in reality it has been unable to either use or sell them.
For purposes of this motion, the Court must accept Hytel's factual
allegations as true. Thus, it finds questions of fact that preclude a
granting of full summary judgment. This includes promises such as "I
guarantee [Hytel] will need this equipment" that clearly qualify as
unambiguous. Similarly, Hytel shows reliance via its submitted deposition
testimony that it purchased the equipment because of (and therefore in
reliance upon) Gore's unambiguous promises, and has been unable to use it
since Gore terminated their business relationship. However, Gore's motion
for summary judgment is granted with respect to equipment Hytel purchased
prior to its selection as Gore's supplier and prior to Gore's granting of
the alleged promises.
Gore's briefs do not directly contest either the reasonableness or
damages prongs of the promissory estoppel test. This allows Hytel to
establish both without contest showing reasonableness by referring to
Gore's promises and forecasts of expected demand, and damages by the
price of the equipment. Even had Gore contested reasonableness, recent
Seventh Court precedent
suggests they would still lose. See Cloud Corporation v. Hasbro, Inc.,
314 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002) (in a contract modification case, decision
of supplier to produce parts for manufacturer in absence of purchase
orders was reasonable).
4. Engineering Costs
The same analysis applies as to engineering costs, an issue not
extensively briefed by either party. To the degree that Hytel expended
resources on engineering to improve its chances of securing the supplier
contract with Gore, it clearly did not act reliance on any promise.
However, engineering costs that post date the Hytel-Gore agreement, and
the alleged promises concerning future orders, may factually have been
made in reasonable reliance on such promises. These costs withstand
summary judgment and should proceed to trial.
For the reasons discussed above, Gore's motion is granted in part and
denied in part, as follows:
1. On Count I, the Court grants summary judgment for Gore on Hytel's
claims for lost profits and safety stock, and concludes that Hytel does
not make a breach of contract claim for equipment and engineering costs.
2. The Court denies summary judgment as to Hytel's other Count I
3. On Count II, the Court grants summary judgment for Gore with respect
to Hytel's claims for parts, lost profits and safety stock.
4. The Court denies summary judgment as to Hytel's Count II claims for
labor, incidental, equipment, and engineering costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.