CWF Hamilton and Co LTD v. Schaefer Group Inc, 3:10-cv-00339

Hamilton Jet, a New Zealand company, sued Schaefer in a diversity action in the SD Ohio seeking multiple warranty claims; the case proceeded on Schaefer's partial summary judgment motion limited to breach of original warranties.
In 2006 Hamilton Jet purchased an electric aluminum reverberatory furnace from Schaefer for $238,166.80 under a one-year express warranty.
The warranty commenced when the furnace was commissioned (around January 15, 2007) and problems were reported by Hamilton Jet in January 2008 within the warranty period.
The parties attempted repair; Schaefer sent a representative to New Zealand, but inspection occurred after the warranty period.
The proposed repair involved a new furnace base with relining and a “hot swap,” with Schaefer charging about $75,725 for reline work; Schaefer argues Hamilton Jet did not give proper notice or opportunity to cure.
The court, applying Ohio law in a diversity action, found a genuine issue of material fact about whether Hamilton Jet properly notified Schaefer within the warranty period, so summary judgment for Schaefer on Count I was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hamilton Jet properly notified Schaefer of the breach within the warranty period	Hamilton Jet gave notice within the one-year period	Hamilton Jet did not provide proper notice or opportunity to cure	Genuine issue of material fact remains; summary judgment denied.
Whether Hamilton Jet preserved its claim by giving Schaefer an opportunity to repair	Notice and opportunity to cure were provided	No proper cure opportunity established	Genuine issue of material fact remains; summary judgment denied.

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (standard for summary judgment burden and discovery)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact must exist; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (preliminary burden on moving party to show absence of genuine dispute)
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (mere metaphysical doubt insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Liberty Lobby v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for assessing evidence on summary judgment)
In re Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1996) (court’s role in evaluating evidence on summary judgment)
Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989) (opponent must present specific evidence to counter movant)
Abele v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 11 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (claims require proof of nonconformity, reasonable cure, and failure to repair)
AGF, Inc. v. Great Lakes Heat Treating Co., 51 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (notice of breach need not be a magic or specific form under Ohio law)
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F.Supp.2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (buyer must give seller notice of lack of conformity under CISG)