FIGGIE INTERN., INC. v. DESTILERIA SERRALLES, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller’s equipment failed to work. The court held that industry custom (usage of trade) limited the buyer’s remedy to repair, replacement, or refund, and this remedy did not fail its essential purpose when the seller ultimately provided a full refund after repair attempts failed.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that under the UCC, an exclusive remedy for breach of contract can be imposed by usage of trade, and a multi-part remedy (e.g., repair, replacement, or refund) does not fail its essential purpose if one of its options is successfully provided.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Destileria Serralles, Inc. (“Serralles”), a rum bottler, purchased bottle-labeling equipment from Figgie International, Inc. (“Figgie”). The equipment failed to perform as required upon installation. After several months of unsuccessful repair attempts, Figgie refunded the full purchase price, and Serralles returned the equipment. Serralles then sought consequential damages for losses caused by the equipment’s failure. Figgie initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that its obligations were fulfilled. A key dispute arose because the written limitation of remedies clause was missing from Serralles’s copy of the sales agreement, and Figgie had lost its original. Figgie contended that, regardless of the missing text, usage of trade in the bottle-labeling industry supplemented the contract with an exclusive remedy limited to repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price. Figgie supported this claim with uncontradicted affidavits from industry experts. Serralles argued that usage of trade could not create an exclusive remedy and that, in any event, the remedy had failed of its essential purpose.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under the Uniform Commercial Code, can usage of trade supplement a sales agreement to impose an exclusive remedy, and if so, does that remedy fail of its essential purpose when repair attempts are unsuccessful but the seller ultimately provides a full refund?
Yes. The court held that usage of trade supplemented the agreement with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, can usage of trade supplement a sales agreement to impose an exclusive remedy, and if so, does that remedy fail of its essential purpose when repair attempts are unsuccessful but the seller ultimately provides a full refund?
Conclusion
This case affirms that usage of trade can be a powerful gap-filler Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
Legal Rule
Under the UCC, usage of trade can supplement and qualify the terms Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the interplay between several UCC provisions. First, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under the UCC, an exclusive remedy (e.g., repair, replace, or refund)