![]() ![]() The contract incorporated the customer sales order and incorporated by reference certain drawings, parts lists and exhibits describing in detail the items to be included in the construction of the boat.Ĥ) The contract stated, in part, II. Defendant MonArk Boat Company is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Monticello, Arkansas.Ģ) On August 4, 1972, plaintiff and defendant executed a customer sales order for the construction of a fifty-eight foot custom-built houseboat.ģ) On August 12, 1972, plaintiff and defendant executed a contract in connection with the same. Tarter is a citizen of the state of Missouri. Defendant MonArk counterclaimed, seeking to recover additional payments under the contract.įollowing trial to the Court sitting without a jury, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:ġ) Plaintiff Roy L. The remaining two third-party defendants filed petitions in bankruptcy and accordingly, suit did not proceed with respect to the third-party complaint. One of the three third-party defendants was dismissed from this suit. Defendant MonArk Boat Company filed a third-party complaint. Tarter brought this suit seeking to recover damages allegedly sustained for breach of warranties in connection with a custom-built houseboat. Louis, Mo., for defendant and third-party plaintiff. Kenney, Jr., Kenney, Leritz & Reinert, St. Dalton, Klamen, Summers & Compton, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiff.įrancis L. SteelSHIP CORPORATION and AlumaShip Corporation, Third-Party Defendants. ![]() MonARK BOAT COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |