Appeal No. 98-1380
Application 08/786,741
Mr. Bradbury states (D. ¶2, S.D. ¶2):
On or about June 2, 1993, pursuant to a pur-
chase order (P.O.# 7120-M), Metal Building
Components, Inc. (hereinafter “MBCI”) agreed
to purchase a roll former (hereinafter the
“MBCI roll former”) that was to be sub-
sequently designed and manufactured by
Bradbury.
Purchase order 7120-M (Invoice 19689) describes the item ordered
simply as “Bradbury Rollforming Equipment,” with a price of
$951,234.00, a payment of $285,370.20 being “NOW DUE.” There is
no evidence in the record of the circumstances surrounding this
order, and in particular, whether the equipment ordered was to be
designed by Bradbury from scratch, or whether it would be a
modification of Bradbury’s existing equipment. Two additional
invoices for the same purchase order, dated September 8, 1993
(No. 20023) and March 28, 1994 (No. 21132), indicate,
respectively, a further balance due of $285,370.20, and a balance
due prior to shipment of $399,253.60.
Mr. Bradbury goes on to describe the machine as follows
(D. ¶3, S.D. ¶3):
The MBCI roll former constructed pursuant
to the purchase order included a mechanical
evidence relied upon in making the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007