Morin Building Products Co. v. Baystone Construction, Inc.

Morin Building - Contracts 11/17 Implied Obligation of Good Faith Morin Building Products Co v Baystone Construction Inc 1983 Facts GM hired

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 11/17 Implied Obligation of Good Faith Morin Building Products Co. v. Baystone Construction, Inc., 1983 Facts : GM hired Baystone to build an addition to a Chevy plant. Baystone hired Morin to supply and erect the aluminum walls for the addition. The contract said “that all work shall be done subject to the final approval of the Owner and his decisions relating to artistic effect shall be final… should any dispute arise as to the quality or fitness of materials or workmanship, the decision as to acceptability shall rest strictly with the Owner.” Morin installed the walls, but when viewed in bright sunlight from an acute angle the exterior siding didn’t give the impression of having a uniform finish. GM’s representative rejected it, and Baystone refused to pay Morin the balance of the contract. Procedure : trial court for plaintiff Issue : whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury was correct. “Notwithstanding the apparent finality of the foregoing language [of the contract], however, the general rule
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at Ole Miss.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online