Case Name: OUELLETTE MACHINERY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CLINTON LINDBURG CADILLAC CO., Defendant, and General Motors Corporation, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-08-19
Citations: 118 S.W.3d 610
Docket Number: No. ED 81903
Parties: OUELLETTE MACHINERY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CLINTON LINDBURG CADILLAC CO., Defendant, and General Motors Corporation, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 118
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
OUELLETTE MACHINERY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CLINTON LINDBURG CADILLAC CO., Defendant, and General Motors Corporation, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 81903.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Aug. 19, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 2, 2003.
Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 25, 2003.
Matthew J. Sauter, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Chuck N. Chionuma, Chionuma & Associates, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Ouellette Machinery Systems, Inc. appeals from a judgment in its favor on its claim for damages for breach of warranty against General Motors Corporation. It argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence relating to consequential damages. No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).