Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRAD FOOTE GEAR WORKS, INC. v. DELTA BRANDS

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


February 18, 2004.

BRAD FOOTE GEAR WORKS, INC., an Illinois corporation, plaintiff/ Counter-defendant,
v.
DELTA BRANDS, INC., a Texas cororation, Defendant/ Counter-plaintiff.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Brad Foote Gear Works, Inc. (BFG) brought this action against defendant Delta Brands, Inc. (Delta) alleging breach of contract Delta filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and BFG filed a motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is granted.

In deciding a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations, making all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Sidney S. Arst Co. v. Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund. 25 F.3d 417, 420 (7th Cir. 1994). We should dismiss a claim only if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). While the complaint does not need to provide the correct legal theory to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it must allege all of the elements necessary to recover. Ellsworth v. City of Racine. 774 F.2d 182, 184 (7th Cir. 1985), cert denied, 475 U.S. 1047 (1986).

  BFG claims that between January and April, 2000, it entered into a series of contracts Page 3 to manufacture equipment for Delta, but that Delta refused to pay over $118, 000 pursuant to those contracts. A natural reading of the counterclaim is that the parties entered into a binding agreement on January 21, 2000, yet BFG was unable to complete its part of that bargain, causing the parties to modify the contract, reducing the overall price, because of the damage to Delta. Even If Delta's allegations are true, they amount to nothing more than a claim that BFG breached the January 21, 2000, agreement However, when Delta agreed to the contract modification, or novation, the original contract was extinguished along with Delta's right to sue for breach. Phillips and Arnold. Inc. v. Frederick J. Borgsmlller. Inc., 123 111. App.3d 95, 101, 462 N.E.2d 924, 928 (5thDist. 1984). If we misunderstand the counterclaim, it can be amended,

CONCLUSION
  For the foregoing reasons, BFG's motion to dismiss Delta's counterclaim is granted.

20040218

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.