Opinion ID: 700494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 This diversity action arose from the sale of a step-up transformer by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse) to Cooperative Power Association (CPA). CPA brought suit against Westinghouse after the transformer malfunctioned, apparently the result of improperly tightened bushing caps. CPA raised several tort and contract claims, ultimately winning a verdict in excess of $1.4 million on the basis of a negligent misrepresentation claim. 2 Immediately after the trial, however, the district court 1 vacated the verdict sua sponte and ordered a new trial, holding that the negligent misrepresentation claim as submitted to the jury had not properly framed the issues. On the eve of the scheduled retrial and pursuant to Westinghouse's motion, the court ultimately dismissed CPA's amended complaint with prejudice. 3 CPA raises three issues on appeal. CPA first contests the district court's dismissal of its negligent misrepresentation claim, contending that North Dakota allows such claims regardless of whether the parties have entered a contractual relationship. CPA next contends that the court committed reversible error in requiring CPA to prove that it had given Westinghouse some additional consideration in exchange for an extension of their one-year in service warranty agreement. Finally, CPA argues that the district court improperly ruled that the U.C.C.'s implied warranties only apply when the buyer is not a sophisticated business entity, and thus erred in refusing to instruct the jury on either of CPA's two implied warranty claims. 4 Westinghouse cross-appeals, claiming that the district court committed several procedural errors that preclude it from reinstating the jury verdict should we reverse the court's dismissal of CPA's negligent misrepresentation claim.