Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND A-R, INC., ET AL. : : v. : : SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, : INC., ET AL. : ...o0o... MEMORANDUM Now pending is a motion filed by Specialty Equipment Company, Inc. ("Specialty"), seeking reconsideration of this court's denial of summary judgment on plaintiff A-R, Inc.'s ("A-R") claim for breach of implied warranty. states two grounds for reconsideration. Specialty

CIVIL NO. CCB-97-538

The first essentially

reargues the issues of the alleged defects in the machinery, adding an untimely affidavit in support of Specialty's position. This argument shall be denied for the reasons The second,

stated in my Memorandum of March 30, 1999. however, requires further consideration.

Specialty has argued that A-R cannot recover consequential damages because there is no privity between Specialty, the manufacturer, and A-R, which purchased the car wash system at issue through another defendant, Complete Construction and Car Wash Systems, Inc. ("Complete"). I did

not reach this issue earlier because it appeared that A-R also was claiming direct damages from Specialty, which Specialty 1

concedes could be recoverable.

In its motion for

reconsideration, Specialty has demonstrated that the only damages it may be subject to are consequential. If Maryland

law would not permit an award of consequential damages in the absence of privity, Specialty would be entitled to judgment before trial. Whether Maryland law would permit such damages to be recovered apparently has not been decided by either the Court of Special Appeals or the Court of Appeals. Maryland permits

certification pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.,

Download A-R v Specialty Equip.pdf

Maryland Law