Breach of Contract Fraudulent Inducement Claims.

Byline: Derek Hawkins

WI Court of Appeals District I

Case Name: Tankstar USA, Inc., et al. v. Navistar, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 2017AP1907

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Breach of Contract Fraudulent Inducement Claims

Tankstar USA, Inc. ("Tankstar USA"), Bulk Logistics, Inc. ("Bulk"), Schwerman Trucking Company ("Schwerman"), North American Bulk Transport, Inc. ("North American"), and Rogers Cartage Company ("Rogers") (collectively, "Tankstar") appeal a summary judgment granted in favor of Navistar, Inc. ("Navistar") and Lakeside International Trucks, Inc. ("Lakeside"). The judgment was granted on Tankstar's breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims relating to its purchase of seventy-nine ProStar semi-trailer trucks manufactured by Navistar and purchased from Lakeside.

Tankstar argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on its fraudulent inducement claim against Lakeside on the basis that Tankstar lacks an available remedy for any alleged fraud. We agree with the circuit court that Tankstar's subsequent conduct in selling the trucks and instituting the present action for contract-based damages had the effect of affirming the contract, thereby precluding Tankstar from seeking restitutionary damages associated with a rescission of its contracts with Lakeside. Because Tankstar has no breach of contract claim against Lakeside, the circuit court properly dismissed Tankstar's fraudulent inducement claim.

Tankstar also argues the contractual "repair and replace" remedy Navistar offered in its various warranties failed of its essential purpose because several trucks required repeated engine repairs. As a result...