Opinion ID: 2977357
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract claim against Edwards

Text: 11 No. 07-2126 Irwin Seating v. IBM We now turn to Irwin’s contract claims against Edwards. Irwin’s core complaint relates to the inability of the various software programs to interact. Edwards failed to provide an interface between Manufacturing Manager and OneWorld, and Custom Works was unable to effectively exchange information with OneWorld. But Irwin agreed to license Custom Works as a “stand alone suite” that was “not currently provided in a form that is interoperable with . . . OneWorld.” Similarly, the OneWorld license agreement disclaimed any prior statements regarding the interface between OneWorld and Manufacturing Manager. Irwin insists that these disclaimers should be ignored, citing the 1955 Olson Manufacturing case and the more recent unpublished Turnipseed decision in its attempt to hold Edwards to its alleged precontractual promises regarding the interfaces between the various programs. We find persuasive the district court’s well-reasoned determination that the parties’ written agreement effectively disclaimed any such promises. Irwin Seating II, 2007 WL 2351007 at -17. Next, Irwin asserts that Custom Works suffered from internal defects and that Edwards is liable for these problems under the express warranty in the original Custom Works license agreement. The district court, however, concluded that “claims based on the original version of CW appear to be barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations for Colorado claims under the UCC.” Id. at . Irwin acknowledges that the three-year limitations period applies, but argues that Colorado’s “repair doctrine” tolled the running of the limitation period for as long as Edwards was attempting to repair the defect. Edwards’s second motion for partial summary judgment, however, raised the statute-of-limitations defense to the breach of warranty claims involving its software. Irwin nonetheless did not brief the repair doctrine or develop a record to support the doctrine’s 12 No. 07-2126 Irwin Seating v. IBM applicability, and has thus waived the issue. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 319 n.3 (1999) (declining to consider on appeal an argument that “was neither raised nor considered below”).