#INGERSOLL RAND WHITE PAGES NJ PORTABLE#

The court must allow the jury's finding to stand whenever the evidence is 'of such character that reasonable men, in an impartial exercise of their judgment may reach different conclusions.' Silverii v. On the other hand, when the parties have not only completed their arrangements but have actually completed the commercial relationship involved, notwithstanding the absence of definite written terms, a trier of fact is entitled to view the entire dealing and conclude that it indicated there was a contract with terms mutually understood between the parties. Similarly, if there is an attempt to seek damages for an executory contract, the courts may focus on the absence of agreement to essential terms to denominate the arrangement between the parties as one of negotiation preliminary to an anticipated later written contract. Thus, if there is an attempt to specifically enforce a contract in which certain essential elements are missing, the lack of specificity may make enforcement so difficult that the courts will hold there was no enforceable contract. While the absence of certain terms may, under certain circumstances, suggest the nonexistence of a contract, the fact that the arrangements may actually have been concluded can evidence the contrary. Our examination of this case indicates that there is no basis for plaintiff's recovery in contract theory and that recovery in negligence is not sustainable because merely 'economic loss' is involved. Contract and tort, however, remain distinct categories serving distinct needs in the rubric of our law. 17, 403 P.2d 145 (1966)) the body of legal principles invoked in situations when 'economic' loss is involved are those of contract law. White Motor Co., (63 Cal.2d 9, 45 Cal.Rptr. Nonetheless, as noted by the analysis of the California Supreme Court in Seely v. Inequalities in the bargaining position of purchasers of goods versus manufacturers of those goods will certainly arise. The province of contract law is that group of situations which involve the reasonably foreseeable commercial expectations of purchasers and sellers. Our decision herein is limited to those products liability cases which seek recovery solely for economic losses based upon negligence and strict liability theories. 1966)), that tort theory (there strict liability, here negligence) does not extend to permit recovery against a manufacturer for solely 'economic losses' absent property damage or personal injury from the use of the product. We conclude, as did the court, without analysis, in (Rhodes Pharmacal Co.

#INGERSOLL RAND WHITE PAGES NJ PORTABLE#

On appeal, Ingersoll-Rand claims there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that there was an express oral contract between it and Caisson, that the trial court committed errors by excluding evidence of the terms of Ingersoll-Rand's agreement with Portable Tool and in restricting its cross-examination of an expert witness, and that the court erred in refusing to grant it a new trial because Caisson failed to supply certain documents relating to the damage claim in response to its discovery requests. ('Portable Tool'), Ingersoll-Rand's distributor in the Chicago area, which was not a defendant in the action. Caisson purchased the drill from Portable Tool Sales and Service Company, Inc. Caisson brought this diversity action against Ingersoll-Rand Company ('Ingersoll-Rand'), the manufacturer of a DHD-130 'Superdrill', seeking consequential damages because the drill failed to perform as represented by Ingersoll-Rand. This is an appeal from a judgment of $426,724.90 awarded to Caisson Corporation ('Caisson') as damages after an eight-day jury trial.

Ingersoll rand white pages nj