This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps purchased and installed sixty windows manufactured by D. Three years later, P noticed that many of the windows were decaying and notified Simon Hickman, the contractor who installed the windows, of the decay. D contends that it did not learn of the decay until late two years later when the area distributor contacted D regarding the decay. An inspection showed that 56 windows had either 'obvious decay' or 'incipient decay.' In March 1998, D sent Ps a letter promising to replace 33 windows for free. Ps also claim that D's agent, Greg Muirhead, orally informed them that the remaining windows would be replaced for free, but that D could not replace them yet due to production problems. In 1999, D replaced 33 of the windows that were in the most advanced state of decay. In June 2000, D sent another inspector who concluded that 21 windows, including four of the newly installed windows, had obvious decay. In June 2000, D sent another inspector who concluded that 21 windows, including four of the newly installed windows, had obvious decay. In January 2001, D told Ps they could purchase replacement windows at a 32% discount. D would not replace them for free. Ps filed suit in July 2001. D moved for summary judgment, and it was granted. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.