Fanczi Screw Company v. Orix Financial, No. 06-1488 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1488 FANCZI SCREW COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and CAROLINA TOOLING CONCEPTS, Plaintiff, versus ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Orix Credit Alliance, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (6:02-cv-00198-TLW) Argued: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Stanley Eugene Barnett, SMITH, BUNDY, BYBEE & BARNETT, P.C., Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Samuel Walter Hixon, III, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William R. Mauck, Jr., Patrick R. Hanes, WILLIAM MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Orix Financial Services, Inc., an equipment leasing company, breached its contract to lease an industrial device known as a whirling machine to Fanczi Screw Company. We previously held that the contract between the parties included a limitations provision that chos[e] New York state law, and prohibit[ed] consequential and punitive damages. Fanczi Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., 114 Fed. Appx. 548, 553 (4th Cir. 2004). Our previous opinion describes the facts of the relationship between the parties and the procedural history of this litigation, so we need not repeat these here. See id. at 550-52. On remand, the district court concluded that: (1) Fanczi s lost profits did not constitute actual damages under New York law;* and (2) by its plain language, a provision in the security agreement concerning the payment of attorney s fees and interest provided rights only to the Mortgagor (defined in the Security Agreement as Orix) and not to the Mortgagee (defined as Fanczi). Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we affirm for reasons well stated by the district court. * Fanczi Fanczi claims its actual damages should be measured as the value of the very performance promised -- that is, the value of the lease agreement. However, Fanczi has conceded that the market value of the whirling machine was no different at the time of Orix s breach than at the time of contracting, and so offered no basis before us or the district court for determining the value of the lease agreement other than lost profits. 3 Screw Co. v. Orix Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 6:02-198-TLW, slip op. (D.S.C. July 26, 2005). AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
