What Is The Ingersoll-Rand Co. V. Implied Case

On December 5, 1983, Ingersoll-Rand Co. went into a leasing agreement with Cole Energy Development. Ingersoll-Rand leased two compressors to Cole Energy to obtain natural gas from the Fishhook Gas Field in Illinois on separate leases. Cole Energy only had a 25% stake in the Fishhook gas fields. The compressors malfunctioned and did not acquire the amount of gas that Ingersoll-Rand said they would. Cole lost revenue due to this and sued Ingersoll-Rand for fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, as well as damages in the amount of $2 million (Cole Energy Development Co. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (1994), 1994). This case was taken to trial and was appealed twice by Cole Energy. After repeated service calls the compressors were not able to

One of which was the Implied Warranty of Merchantability which states in section 2-314 of the U.C.C. is basically the seller’s or lessor’s promise that the goods sold or leased in a contract would work (Crawford, 2002). The second warranty was the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose which states in section 2-315 of the U.C.C. that the goods sold or leased are fit for the buyer’s or lessee’s particular purpose (Gonzales, 1987). However, in paragraph 17 of the lease agreement between Cole Energy and Ingersoll-Rand, listed as Warranties, it implicitly states the following: “…there are no implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose contained herein” (Cole Energy Development Co. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (1988), 1988). Based upon this statement, the court dismissed this charge against

v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (1994), 1994). The court addressed the fraud and breach of express warranty claim from Cole Energy with a nine-day bench trial. The findings were that Cole Energy did not provide enough information to substantiate fraud and that claim was dismissed. However, Cole Energy’s claim of the breach of express warranty was granted. The court requested both parties submit affidavits on the issue of damages in this regard. Ingersoll-Rand was found negligent in not providing an ample remedy to the compressor defects. The court surmised that the damages were to total $68,769 but since Cole Energy only had a 25% stake in the Fishhook gas fields, they were only liable to receive $17,192.95, which is 25% of $68,769. Based upon the poor submission from Cole Energy, the court could not properly surmise any other damages to be awarded. Based upon submissions from Ingersoll-Rand, the court cancelled out their request of rental payments due with the damages awarded to Cole Energy.
In conclusion, the question of whether Ingersoll-Rand was liable for the accusations posed by Cole Electric is laid out in the lease agreements themselves. Of course, Ingersoll-Rand was liable for the deficiency in the express warranty but the implied warranties were covered when in paragraph