firm represents Kids’ Favorite Candy Company, Inc., a manufacturing corporation
that produces traditional candies for retail stores in the greater Houston area.
On July 11, 2017, my client entered into a consumer relationship with your
company via Purchase and Installment agreement. This contract involved the sale
and installation of a motor deemed suitable for use with a used packaging
machine my client owned. Less than 90 days after installation of the motor,
KFCC discovered that the motor was defective. It’s use caused irreparable
damage to the candy packaging machine which resulted in over $20,000 of damages
in equipment and lost business. I am requesting restitution on behalf of my
client in the amount of $20,000. This amount is for replacement of the damaged Packaging
Machine that malfunctioned due to the defective motor sold by your company. Detailed
below are the facts and applicable law as it applies to this dispute. In the
instant case, Empire Machine Parts stands in breach of express warranty and
implied warranty of merchantability with KFCC. My client is willing to settle, if
you agree to pay the restitution fee by March 1, 2018. Failure to do so will
result in further legal action and additional financial costs to your corporation.
This letter is provided pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
Under Article 5 of the Purchase and
Installment contract, your corporation agreed to honor the following representations
5.1.1 Defects. As of the time of delivery of the Motor to
Candy Company at the Facility, the Motor has no defects.
5.1.2 Compatibility. The Motor is compatible for use with the
a representative of KFCC, reviewed and attested the contract with Susan Giles,
a sales representative in the Houston office of Empire Machine Parts. Prior to purchasing the used candy packaging machine,
KFCC had the product inspected by Solid Inspections, Inc. to ensure its
functionality. The pre-purchase report confirmed that the used packaging
machine was in great working condition and would be suitable for use once a compatible
motor was installed.
In early August 2017, Empire
Machine Parts delivered and installed the motor at KFCC’s facility. Mr.
Carsworth’s employees experienced no problems with the packaging machine until
late September 2017 when it began vibrating significantly during use. At that
time, my client reached out to your corporation for assistance, and an Empire
Machine Parts inspector claimed to not find any defect with the motor. Although
the inspector failed to identify a problem, the packaging machine stopped
functioning on September 22, 2017 and was deemed irreparable.
KFCC hired Mechanical Inspectors of
Texas, LLC on September 28 to further investigate the functionality of the motor
and packaging equipment. The mechanical report
indicates that although the motor appeared to have been properly installed by
your employee, the cause of the damage was in fact the motor itself, and not
any other component of the packaging machine. KFCC purchased
a new machine for $21,157 to carry on its candy business at current demand
levels and is not requesting additional payment for this inconvenience.
Given these findings, Empire
Machine Parts is liable for the for the cost of the broken packaging machine. Mr.
Carsworth attempted to resolve this dispute with your company in October 2017
by contacting Andrew Kwok, an Empire Machine Parts company representative. Mr.
Kwok has been uncooperative with the demands of my client and KFCC
has been compelled to retain the services of this firm to seek remedy for the
damages it has suffered. KFCC
possesses evidence to prove the essential elements of both breach of express
warranty and implied warranty of merchantability.
The Contract provides evidence that
Empire Machine Parts affirmed the compatibility of the motor with the packaging
machine under Article 5. My client relied on these statements to purchase the
motor, and the motor failed to comply with descriptions made in §5.1.1 and
§5.1.2 of the Contract. KFCC also suffered damages amounting to the loss of the
used packaging machine. Empire Machine Part’s breached affirmations in the
aforementioned sections are the proximate cause of injury as detailed in the
inspection report from The Mechanical Inspectors of Texas, LLC.
These elements are sufficient to prove that Empire Machine Part’s
breached express warranty of the motor.
Machine Parts also breached the implied warranty of merchantability on KFCC’s
purchase of the motor. The inspection report from September 28 provides
evidence that the motor was
unfit for use with the packaging machine because it lacked something necessary
for adequacy and compatibility with the device. Accordingly,
the motor does not provide reliable, functional support for the candy packaging
machine as promised in §5.1.2 of the contract. The motor had defects and
non-conformities to warranty that rendered the candy packaging machine inoperable.
Because of the defects that rendered the motor incompatible, the candy packing
machine was damaged beyond repair. This indicates that the motor is not fit for
its ordinary purpose as promised in the contract.
a direct result of your misrepresentations and warranties, my client requests that you honor your obligations under Texas consumer protection laws. Texas Business & Commerce Code §
2.714 and § 2.715 protects consumers from deceptive sales by allowing them to
recover incidental and consequential damages for breach of warranty in regard
to accepted goods.
As of the date of this writing, the
total damages suffered thus far by KFCC as a direct consequence of your misrepresentations
and warranties is $20,000.00, itemized as follows:
1. Cost of used Packaging Machine
Demand is hereby made upon you to
immediately pay the amount of damages sustained, $20,000.00, to KFCC through
this office immediately. Unless we receive the full amount, $20,500.00 on or
before March 1, 2018,
this firm has been instructed to file and prosecute a lawsuit against you to
collect all damages caused by the above-described wrongful representations and
warranties. In connection with such litigation, we have been directed to pursue
all proper legal remedies and to seek all available relief including, but not
limited to, KFCC’s attorney’s
fees (recoverable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section
38.001(8)),the cost of the September 28 inspection (arguably recoverable as
incidental damages under Texas Business and Commerce Code section 2.715(a)),
and the profit KFCC lost on a few customer accounts before the replacement
machine arrived (arguably recoverable as consequential damages under section
2.715(b)(1)).Your immediate response to this
serious matter will be appreciated.