AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• PEMCO agreed to fabricate a specialized swabbing unit for Horizon, which Horizon later returned due to issues with vibration and transmission. Despite several repairs, including the replacement of the transmission and repositioning of the transfer case, the unit continued to malfunction. Horizon filed a lawsuit against PEMCO for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unfair trade practices, while PEMCO countersued for the remaining balance on the unit and costs for replacing the transmission (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Horizon): Argued that the district court erred in determining that the parties’ claims were settled by an accord and satisfaction and challenged the district court’s findings on unfair trade practices and the scope of warranties (paras 1, 7).
• Defendant-Appellee (PEMCO): Countersued for debt and money due, alleging Horizon still owed for the fabrication of the unit and sought reimbursement for the cost of replacing the transmission. PEMCO did not initially raise the defense of accord and satisfaction but later argued that the claims had been settled by an accord and satisfaction (paras 6, 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing Horizon's claims based on an accord and satisfaction.
• Whether the district court erred in its findings related to unfair trade practices and the scope of warranties.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing Horizon's claims and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 27).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge (with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge concurring): The court found that the evidence did not support the district court’s conclusion of an accord and satisfaction between Horizon and PEMCO. Testimonies from both parties indicated no mutual understanding or assent regarding the settlement of claims through forgiveness of debt. The court also addressed the district court’s findings on warranty issues, noting insufficient evidence to establish an industry custom of excluding lost profits or downtime from warranties. Furthermore, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on Horizon’s unfair practices claim due to lack of findings. The court applied a substantial evidence standard of review and reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo (paras 8-26).