Opinion ID: 1973885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express Contractual Duty to Indemnify

Text: One of the most common, and simple bases of indemnity is a contract that provides for it. W. KEETON, D. DOBBS, R. KEETON, & D. OWEN, supra note 5, § 51, at 341. East Penn relies on a contract between it and Leeth Brothers requiring the latter to apply cautionary and identification labels to unlabeled batteries delivered to it by East Penn as encompassing a duty to indemnify East Penn in the event the manufacturer was held liable for a defective warning. [19] The trial judge found that this agreement did not apply to the battery in question, which was supplied to Leeth Brothers with a warning label. Although East Penn concedes that the agreement refers only to unlabeled batteries, it nonetheless appears to argue that Leeth Brothers had the right and assumed the duty to label the battery in question. We find no reason to disturb the judge's finding as to the scope of this agreement. To discharge its duty to warn ultimate users, East Penn undertook to supply a warning label on the battery that injured Pineda, and it cannot rely on a contract that did not apply to the battery in question to shift the entire loss to the seller.