Case Name: BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Appellee, v. ACCU-PATH MEDICAL LABORATORY, INC., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-27
Citations: 17 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 01-1907
Parties: BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Appellee, v. ACCU-PATH MEDICAL LABORATORY, INC., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 17
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Appellee, v. ACCU-PATH MEDICAL LABORATORY, INC., Appellant.
No. 01-1907.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2001.
Decided Aug. 27, 2001.
Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Accu-Path Medical Laboratory, Inc. (Accu-Path) and Becton, Dickinson and Company (Becton) entered into a contract obligating Accu-Path to lease medical equipment and purchase medical supplies from Becton over a sixty-month period. Twenty-one months into the contract, Accu-Path terminated the agreement and Becton brought this diversity breach-of-contract action. Accu-Path raised the defense of mistake, arguing that it mistakenly believed the contract included a cancellation clause. Accu-Path also counterclaimed for damages on the basis of misrepresentation, namely, that Becton should have disclosed its intent to sell similar medical equipment to Accu-Path's customer because the subsequent sale eliminated Accu-Path's need for the equipment. The district court granted summary judgment to Becton, and Accu-Path appeals. We affirm.
Upon careful de novo review of the record, see Roeder v. Metropolitan Ins. & Annuity Co., 236 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir.2001), we agree with the district court that Accu-Path's defense and counterclaim fail. Its summary judgment submissions do not show that Becton committed any fraud in inducing Accu-Path to enter into a contract without a cancellation clause, see Union Nat'l Bank v. Farmers Bank, 786 F.2d 881, 887 (8th Cir.1986), and Arkansas law requires fraud before rescinding or reforming a contract because of a unilateral mistake, see Westlund v. Melson, 7 Ark.App. 268, 647 S.W.2d 488, 489 (Ark.Ct.App.1983). Likewise, the record does not support Accu-Path's misrepresentation claim, given the lack of evidence of any special relationship of trust or confidence in this arm's-length transaction. See Union Nat'l Bank, 786 F.2d at 887 (under Arkansas law, party has no obligation to inform unless it holds position of influence over the other).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.