Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Accu-Path Medical Laboratory, Inc. ( 2001 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1907
___________
Becton, Dickinson and Company, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
Accu-Path Medical Laboratory, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: August 27, 2001
Filed: August 27, 2001
___________
Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Accu-Path Medical Laboratory, Inc. (Accu-Path) and Becton, Dickinson and
Company (Becton) entered into a contract obligating Accu-Path to lease medical
equipment and purchase medical supplies from Becton over a sixty-month period.
Twenty-one months into the contract, Accu-Path terminated the agreement and Becton
brought this diversity breach-of-contract action. Accu-Path raised the defense of
mistake, arguing that it mistakenly believed the contract included a cancellation clause.
Accu-Path also counterclaimed for damages on the basis of misrepresentation, namely,
that Becton should have disclosed its intent to sell similar medical equipment to Accu-
Path’s customer because the subsequent sale eliminated Accu-Path’s need for the
equipment. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Becton, and Accu-Path
appeals. We affirm.
Upon careful de novo review of the record, see Roeder v. Metropolitan Ins. &
Annuity Co., 236 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2001), we agree with the district court that
Accu-Path’s defense and counterclaim fail. Its summary judgment submissions do not
show that Becton committed any fraud in inducing Accu-Path to enter into a contract
without a cancellation clause, see Union Nat’l Bank v. Farmers Bank, 786 F.2d 881,
887 (8th Cir. 1986), and Arkansas law requires fraud before rescinding or reforming
a contract because of a unilateral mistake, see Westlund v. Melson, 647 S.W.2d 488,
489 (Ark. Ct. App. 1983). Likewise, the record does not support Accu-Path’s
misrepresentation claim, given the lack of evidence of any special relationship of trust
or confidence in this arm’s-length transaction. See Union Nat’l Bank, 786 F.2d at 887(under Arkansas law, party has no obligation to inform unless it holds position of
influence over the other).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1
The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-2-