Law School Case Brief
Frix v. Integrity Med. Sys. - No. 1:16-cv-02559-STA-egb, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152961 (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 20, 2017)
The court must enter summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial."
As owner and operator of several medical clinics, plaintiff Frix sought to expand his clinics outside mammography and defendant Integrity Medical Systems ultimately submitted the lowest bid to plaintiff. Plaintiff accepted the bid and advanced over $50,000 to defendant Integrity. During the installation of the equipment, the business transaction went sour, and plaintiff Frix filed an action against defendant Integrity for breach of contract. Integrity responded that the terms of the Purchase Agreement controlled the contract dispute and that the Uniform Commercial Code applied in the agreement. Plaintiff Frix moved for entry of summary judgment against defendant Integrity, alleging that Frix, having neither seen nor signed the Purchase Agreement, was entitled to judgment.
Was there sufficient basis to enter summary judgment against defendant?
The court held that since the parties did not dispute the existence of the contract, that defendant refused to perform under the contract, or that plaintiff suffered damages as a result of this refusal, Plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of breach of contract. Further, defendant Integrity failed to present a dispute of material fact necessary to bring into question or otherwise negate an essential element of Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. The court also concluded that Defendant's arguments in justification of its refusal to perform lacked merit in light of the court's holding that the Purchase Agreement was inapplicable to the contract.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class