Connection lost
Server error
Princess Cruises, Incorporated v. General Electric Company, & Third Party v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, Third Party Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A cruise line and a service provider exchanged conflicting contract forms for ship repairs. The court held the contract was primarily for services, so common law, not the UCC, applied. The provider’s form was a counteroffer accepted by the cruise line’s conduct, thus limiting damages.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that for mixed contracts involving both goods and services, the “predominant purpose test” determines whether the UCC or common law applies. For service-predominant contracts, the common law “mirror image rule” governs contract formation, not UCC § 2-207’s “battle of the forms” provision.
Princess Cruises, Incorporated v. General Electric Company, & Third Party v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, Third Party Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Princess Cruises, Inc. (Princess) contracted with General Electric Company (GE) for inspection and repair services on a cruise ship’s turbines. Princess sent a Purchase Order with its terms and a price of $260,000, which it intended as an offer. GE responded with a “Final Price Quotation” for $231,925, which included its own terms and conditions. GE’s terms explicitly rejected Princess’s terms, disclaimed most warranties, and limited GE’s liability to the contract price, specifically excluding consequential damages and lost profits. Princess verbally authorized GE to proceed based on the lower price. GE performed the work, but its allegedly negligent service damaged the ship’s rotor, forcing Princess to cancel two cruises. Princess paid GE’s quoted price of $231,925. Princess then sued for breach of contract, seeking over $4.5 million in damages, including lost profits from the canceled cruises. The district court applied the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-207, and a jury awarded Princess the full amount sought. GE appealed, arguing that the common law of contracts, not the UCC, should have governed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the common law mirror image rule or the Uniform Commercial Code’s “battle of the forms” provision (UCC § 2-207) govern the formation of a maritime contract that was predominantly for services rather than for the sale of goods?
The court held that the contract was predominantly for services, and therefore, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui of
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the common law mirror image rule or the Uniform Commercial Code’s “battle of the forms” provision (UCC § 2-207) govern the formation of a maritime contract that was predominantly for services rather than for the sale of goods?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear framework for analyzing mixed goods-services contracts, affirming Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Rule
For mixed contracts involving both goods and services, courts must apply the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa q
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that even in a maritime context, a court Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- For mixed contracts of goods and services, even in admiralty, the
