Opinion ID: 681322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Waiver and Ratification.

Text: 47 Rice also insists that Hi-Shear waived and ratified the free samples and price discounts. It notes that the bribed employees completed inventory forms and other documents and contends that the existence of these forms proves that Hi-Shear knew of and approved the free samples, and thus waived its right to object to them. The district court's factual finding to the contrary is, again, not clearly erroneous: Hi-Shear argues that Rice bribed high-level employees and contends that no Hi-Shear internal control procedures uncovered the illegitimate samples at the time they were given. The district court did not clearly err in accepting these arguments. 48 Rice also contends that Hi-Shear ratified the price discounts, by later offering Rice a similar discount. However, the record indicates that when Hi-Shear allegedly discovered the extra line discount, it wrote Rice that the backlog of Rice Aircraft is being reviewed at present to determine what discounts have actually been taken and those offered. An adjustment to the prices will be expected where your pricing errors have occurred.... I have placed a stop order on all Rice shipments until our review is complete. ER 311 (dated March 19, 1987). When Rice protested, threatening to go back to Grumman, Lockheed, Sikorsky, Douglas and Northrop and explain that the reason for our non-delivery is that Hi Shear is contemplating raising the prices on existing purchase orders, ER 313, Hi-Shear agreed to offer Rice the previously offered discounts, but specifically noted that it would no longer allow Rice to take an additional line discount at the time of invoicing. ER 314. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Hi-Shear had not ratified the additional line discount. 49