Option Wireless, Ltd. v. OpenPeak, Inc. 1
C12 - Business Law
Case Analysis 1
Option Wireless, Ltd. v. OpenPeak, Inc.
Summarize the facts of the case
OpenPeak, Inc. were in the process of producing a computer tablet product for a client and
during the production, placed a purchase order for embedded wireless data from Option Wireless, Ltd.
The purchase order was to include details for the 12,300 units to be purchased at the price of USD
$848,700. Both the Buyer and Seller settled on the how many shipments the order would arrive in initially
and concluded the exact number of units and price that would be included in the final shipment,
dependent on a deposit which would be paid in full for the remaining balance. The buyer’s invoice
contained terms on this arrangement and, in addition, also contained a clause stating the buyer had a
maximum of fourteen days to contest any area of the invoice as they see fit. The contract also stated that
if this term was not complied with, the seller would not carry any responsibility for any damages incurred.
Once the remaining balance was paid, the final shipment was sent however upon inspection of the units,
the buyer concluded that the shipment contained multiple defects as they did not meet the specifications
previously agreed upon. In light of this, the Buyer formally rejected the shipment and returned the
defective modules approximately three months later. The seller requested that data be provided from the
buyer to prove there was no such deficiency. Even though the buyer complied, the seller has not provided
proof that there were no defects. The Buyer would like the seller to be charged a total of four criminal
counts, three of which including counts as contractual breach and the fourth count to include unjust
enrichment. The Seller moved to dismiss all contractual breach charges however motion to dismiss was
denied in favor of the buyer.
, Option Wireless, Ltd. v. OpenPeak, Inc. 2
Identify the parties and explain each party’s position
OpenPeak, Inc. is identified as the Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Buyer whereas Option
Wireless, Ltd is identified as the Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant and Seller. The Defendant’s position in
the case is to receive compensation for direct as well as consequential damages regarding the order
that was placed and delivered with defective units. The defendant claims there was a breach of
contract. The Plaintiff’s position is that the buyer did not comply with the terms listed on the
purchase order which gives a time restraint on the return of units that were unsatisfactory.
Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals
The case was brought to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Option Wireless, Ltd filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim of OpenPeak, Inc. A decision by the
court was made to deny this request. There are no appeals on records regarding this decision.
What is the legal issue in question in this case?
The legal issue in question in this case is if an invoice produced by the seller is
considered as a proper means of accepting the offer set out by the buyer, by way of a
purchase order, in the event that the invoice specifically discloses a restriction on how
significantly damaged goods are recovered but the purchase order did not. If there is in fact a
contract that has been executed, where is the location of the terms placed within the contract.
C12 - Business Law
Case Analysis 1
Option Wireless, Ltd. v. OpenPeak, Inc.
Summarize the facts of the case
OpenPeak, Inc. were in the process of producing a computer tablet product for a client and
during the production, placed a purchase order for embedded wireless data from Option Wireless, Ltd.
The purchase order was to include details for the 12,300 units to be purchased at the price of USD
$848,700. Both the Buyer and Seller settled on the how many shipments the order would arrive in initially
and concluded the exact number of units and price that would be included in the final shipment,
dependent on a deposit which would be paid in full for the remaining balance. The buyer’s invoice
contained terms on this arrangement and, in addition, also contained a clause stating the buyer had a
maximum of fourteen days to contest any area of the invoice as they see fit. The contract also stated that
if this term was not complied with, the seller would not carry any responsibility for any damages incurred.
Once the remaining balance was paid, the final shipment was sent however upon inspection of the units,
the buyer concluded that the shipment contained multiple defects as they did not meet the specifications
previously agreed upon. In light of this, the Buyer formally rejected the shipment and returned the
defective modules approximately three months later. The seller requested that data be provided from the
buyer to prove there was no such deficiency. Even though the buyer complied, the seller has not provided
proof that there were no defects. The Buyer would like the seller to be charged a total of four criminal
counts, three of which including counts as contractual breach and the fourth count to include unjust
enrichment. The Seller moved to dismiss all contractual breach charges however motion to dismiss was
denied in favor of the buyer.
, Option Wireless, Ltd. v. OpenPeak, Inc. 2
Identify the parties and explain each party’s position
OpenPeak, Inc. is identified as the Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Buyer whereas Option
Wireless, Ltd is identified as the Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant and Seller. The Defendant’s position in
the case is to receive compensation for direct as well as consequential damages regarding the order
that was placed and delivered with defective units. The defendant claims there was a breach of
contract. The Plaintiff’s position is that the buyer did not comply with the terms listed on the
purchase order which gives a time restraint on the return of units that were unsatisfactory.
Outline the case’s procedural history including any appeals
The case was brought to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Option Wireless, Ltd filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim of OpenPeak, Inc. A decision by the
court was made to deny this request. There are no appeals on records regarding this decision.
What is the legal issue in question in this case?
The legal issue in question in this case is if an invoice produced by the seller is
considered as a proper means of accepting the offer set out by the buyer, by way of a
purchase order, in the event that the invoice specifically discloses a restriction on how
significantly damaged goods are recovered but the purchase order did not. If there is in fact a
contract that has been executed, where is the location of the terms placed within the contract.
