The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed an award of lost profits against a dairy silo manufacturer that breached a promise of exclusivity made to its distributor, even though language in the contract barred such damages. Sanchelima Int'l, Inc. v. Walker Stainless Equip. Co., 920 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir. 2019). Defendant Walker entered into a distribution agreement that gave Sanchelima exclusive rights to distribute Walker’s silos in 13 Latin American countries, and Walker agreed it would not make its own direct sales of silos to customers in those countries. The distribution agreement also contained limited remedy and damages disclaimer provisions, which barred Sanchelima from making any claim for lost profits and capped Walker’s liability at amounts paid by Sanchelima in performance of the agreement. After Walker made several direct sales in violation of the agreement, Sanchelima filed suit. Walker moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sanchelima had no recoverable damages because of the limited remedy provisions. The district court denied the motion and ruled after a bench trial that the limited remedy provisions in the contract were unenforceable for failure of their essential purpose, rendering Walker liable for nearly $800,000 in commissions that Sanchelima lost because of Walker’s direct sales.
On appeal, Walker argued that the district court’s invalidation of the limited remedy provisions was a misapplication of the Uniform Commercial Code. In evaluating these provisions, the district court applied a “dependent approach,” which was adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 513 (Wis. 1978). Under this approach, if a litigant proves that a limited remedy fails its essential purpose, any accompanying consequential damages disclaimer is per se unconscionable. Walker argued, however, that the district court should have followed the “independent approach,” under which the conscionability of a consequential damages disclaimer is evaluated independently of a limited remedy provision. The Seventh Circuit held it was powerless to overturn Murray, and could not certify the issue to the Wisconsin Supreme Court because, under Seventh Circuit rules and Wisconsin law, issues can be certified only if there is “no controlling precedent.” Because Murray was controlling precedent, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would lack jurisdiction. Finally, Walker argued that the district court should not have invalidated the limited remedy provisions in their entirety, but instead, should have reduced the award. But the Seventh Circuit found that Walker waived this argument by failing to include it in its summary judgment brief.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney with extensive experience in both state and federal courts. Richard has represented clients with a wide array of complex legal issues, including antitrust ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.