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.
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 11-16-2022 07:26:36 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/44529965/BUS-LAW-CASE-ANALYSIS-1-ASHWORTH-COLLEGEdocx/
, 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.
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 11-16-2022 07:26:36 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/44529965/BUS-LAW-CASE-ANALYSIS-1-ASHWORTH-COLLEGEdocx/
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.
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 11-16-2022 07:26:36 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/44529965/BUS-LAW-CASE-ANALYSIS-1-ASHWORTH-COLLEGEdocx/
, 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.
This study source was downloaded by 100000812546443 from CourseHero.com on 11-16-2022 07:26:36 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/44529965/BUS-LAW-CASE-ANALYSIS-1-ASHWORTH-COLLEGEdocx/
