Case Study: Open Peak Inc. vs Option Wireless Ltd.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name Of the Student
Name Of the University
Author’s Note

CASE STUDY
1
Facts of the Case:
Open Peak Inc. was engaged in the manufacturing of computer tablets for AT&T. in
order to insert the wireless data modules in the manufactured tablets, they offered a purchase
order to the Option Wireless Ltd. the parties agreed on the term that the delivery of modules shall
be in isolated shipments. After several deliveries, the moment came for the final delivery with
the conditional attachment that the buyer would pay 12.5% as deposit for the due balance.
However, according to the invoice of the seller, it has been explained that the buyer would own
at least fourteen days from the date of delivery of invoice for the seller to claim the dues or any
term of the invoice. The deposit was made and the modules were delivered. Upon inspection,
some of the modules were found to be defective and not in accordance with the specifications
required by the purchaser. The package was returned and the same was intimated to the seller.
The seller did not take any action towards the cognizance of the defect or the acceptance of the
fault and the rectification of the same.
Party Identification:
Option Wireless Ltd is the plaintiff in the case arguing the non-validity of the
purchasing order as the controlling factor for the establishment of contract whereas Open Peak,
Inc., is the defendant alleging the original purchase order acting as the controlling factor for the
establishment of the validity of the contract and the breach by Open Wireless has led to the
consequential damages and hence the claim.

CASE STUDY
2
Procedural History of the Case:
As opined by Florida Southern Federal Court, the request forwarded by Option Wireless
to dismiss the claim for consequential damages by Open Peak has been accepted.
As stated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6), a motion for dismissal is
applicable only where a claim for the same has been made and not where the request for specific
relief has been made, which is considered as a part of the claim (Princeton University 2015). The
Court has defended the request by stating that imposition of liability limitation clause in the
given scenario would amount to the failure in the recovery of the consequential damages but
would not affect the recovery of direct or incidental damages. Thus, the appropriate remedy as
suggested by the court would be to file a motion under Rule 12(f) which would demand the court
to consider the motion filed by the company’s improper title and further to dismiss it if the court
decides to accept the motion against the breaching party.
Legal Issue:
The legal issue in the case is related to the elements constituting the breach of the
contract.
The issue in the case was whether Open Wireless could be held liable for the
consequential damages arising from the failed acceptance and re-delivery of the correct modules.
Courts Order:
It was held by the Court that the elements constituting the breach of contract is basically
the material breach elements relating to the elements constituting the elements of the valid
contract. In other words it has been explained that the breaching elements is similar to that of the