Boeing Airplane Co. v. Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge No. 751, Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists, 188 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1951). · Go Syfert
Search
Boeing Airplane Co. v. Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge No. 751, Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists, 188 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1951). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mulvaney Mechanical, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 38 (ca2, 2002-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mulvaney Mechanical, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 38
2d Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Lodge No. 751, 188 F.2d 356, 357 (9th Cir.1951) (per curiam) (same), with United Steelworkers of Am. v. NLRB, 530 F.2d 266, 280 (3d Cir.1976) (holding that union’s breach of no-strike clause did not entitle employer to rescind contract *502 because “strict application of the doctrine of material breach derived from contract law is inconsistent with contemporary national labor policy”), and Trailways of New England, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, Elec.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Children's Rehabilitation Center, Inc., a Corporation v. The Service Employees International Union, Local No. 227, Afl-Cio (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
No. 751, 91 F.Supp. 596, 613 (W.D.Wash.), aff'd, 188 F.2d 356, 357 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 821 , 72 S.Ct. 39 , 96 L.Ed. 621 (1951), there are numerous other instances where both courts and commentators have held that use of the word 'termination' conveys quite different meanings, some consistent with retention of the damage remedy. 12 S. Williston, Contracts 1455, n. 2 (3d ed. 1970); 5A A. Corbin, Contracts 1236 (1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local Joint Executive Board v. Nationwide Downtowner Motor Inns, Inc.
W.D. Mo. · 1964 · confidence medium
United Electrical R *417 & M Workers v. NLRB, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 46 , 223 F.2d 338, 341 (D.C.Cir.1955); Boeing Airplane Co. v. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International Association of Machinists, 9 Cir., 188 F.2d 356, 357 (9th Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America (Ue), Local 1113 v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1955 · confidence medium
Boeing Airplane Co. v. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International Ass’n of Machinists, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 356 , certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 821 , 72 S.Ct. 39 , 96 L.Ed. 621 ; United Biscuit Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 771, 775 ; Boeing Airplane Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., D.C.Cir., 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 116 , 174 F.2d 988 . 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BOEING AIRPLANE CO.
v.
AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE NO. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASS’N OF MACHINISTS, Et Al.
12656_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 27, 1951.
188 F.2d 356
Holman, Mickelwait, Marion, Prince & Black, Lowell P. Mickelwait, DeForest Perkins and Francis E. Holman, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant., Morrissey, Eagen & Walsh, John E. Hedrick, E. J. Eagen and Stephen J. Morrissey, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellee Aeronautical Ind. District., Lee Olwell, Rummens, Griffin & Short and Tracy E. Griffin, all of Seattle, Wash., Jerome Y. Sturm, New York City, for appellee Int. Ass’n of Machinists.
Bone, Hastie, Healy, Per Curiam.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges a final order of the district court dismissing an action for breach of contract on motions of the defendants to dismiss and for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Boeing Airplane Company, sued the defendants, the International Association of Machinists and an affiliated local lodge, for breach of a promise not to strike which was one of the many provisions embodied in a comprehensive and detailed labor relations contract with Boeing,executed by both the local and international.

It was the principal and sufficient basis of the judgment below that in a letter to the local, received within 12 hours after the strike began, Boeing declared its election to terminate the entire labor relations contract, claiming that the strike afforded justification for such action. In argument before this court it was conceded on behalf of Boeing that this letter of termination effectively brought to an end all of the numerous obligations assumed by the parties under the labor relations contract. However, Boeing insists that its right to damages for the breach represented by the strike, which continued many months to Boeing’s great detriment, survived.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that the learned district judge correctly concluded, in the light of the terms of the contract and all of the circumstances of the case, that at the time immediately after the strike began when Boeing elected to terminate the contract the union had been guilty of a material breach which fell short of abandonment or total repudiation of the contract. The power of termination which accrues to the wronged party as a result of such a breach and was exercised by Boeing in this case is a right of rescission which leaves neither party with any basis thereafter to complain of the conduct of the other as a breach of the contract.

In the opinion of the district court, reported in 91 F.Supp. 596 the analysis of this decisive point appears at pages 609, et seq. under the heading “V. The Legal Effect of the Company’s Letter of April 22, 1948.” That analysis is careful, comprehensive and, we think, correct. Restatement beyond this expression of approval would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.