Steiny & Co. v. California Electric Supply Co.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 215·2000 Daily Journal DAR 3132·79 Cal. App. 4th 285·93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 920·41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 439
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 2000B121149, B124698California2,947 words

Opinion

Opinion

Neal, J.

Summary

Where a plaintiff’s proper invocation of the trade secrets privilege prevents a defendant from examining the basis for the plaintiff’s damage claim, the trial court may properly bar the plaintiff’s damage evidence at trial. If a buyer and a seller exchange invoice and purchase order with conflicting warranty terms, but their conduct shows that a contract has been formed, California Uniform Commercial Code section 2207 applies to form a contract around the parts of the invoice and purchase order which agree, supplemented by the other applicable provisions of the Commercial Code.

Facts and Trial Court Proceedings

Appellant Morley Construction Company (Morley) was the general contractor for seismic upgrade work at a facility owned by appellant Hughes Aircraft Company (Hughes). Morley subcontracted with appellant Steiny and Company, Inc. (Steiny) for supply and installation of an electric switchboard with circuit breakers. Steiny bought the switchboard from respondent California Electric Supply Company, Inc. (California). The switchboard was manufactured by Cutler Hammer, Inc. (Cutler).

The switchboard exploded two days after it was powered up, causing a 16-hour…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.