The plaintiff manufacturer sued for unpaid invoices arising from the supply of loading dock restraint systems, while the defendant dealer counterclaimed for replacement costs and lost business opportunities based on alleged defects, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable set-off.
The court found the defendant had selected the product on its own, knowingly took a commercial risk, and failed to prove any product defect.
The defendant's metallurgy expert was admitted but given no weight because his opinion was biased, methodologically unsound, and based on unverified assumptions.
The court held there was no breach of warranty, no negligence, no negligent misrepresentation, and no basis for equitable set-off.
Judgment was granted for the unpaid invoices with contractual pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs.
