Tonernews.com, September 11, 2018. USA
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
-
Posts
-
Xerox Sued Over Printing Press Agreement.
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania corporation is suing Xerox Corp., citing alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation and concealment.
Life Celebration, Inc. filed a complaint on July 13, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Xerox alleging that it misrepresented a lease agreement for servicing two costly digital printing presses until 2022, without any corresponding sublease or premises to house and operate them.The plaintiff alleges that, between 2014 and November 21, 2017, Life Celebration Inc. experienced repeated problems with Xerox's iGen3 press, which caused delays in production.Xerox suggested replacing it with a newer model, resulting in a new agreement leasing two new iGen4 presses and renewing the premises sublease for a conterminous, 72-month term, the suit says.Xerox allegedly refused to install the two units as it noticed that the humidification systems' key components were missing, which would pose a high risk of serious damage to the unit if not repaired or replaced.Without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the key components were removed potentially two years earlier, which accounted for the constant malfunction of iGen3, and for which defendant convinced plaintiff to lease a newer, more expensive machine.Plaintiff also says the 2016 agreement equipment lease was not coterminous with the separate premise sublease. Despite numerous calls, plaintiff never heard from Kevin Horey (Xerox's Vice President and General Manager of Workflow and Finishing Solutions) even with his promise that he'd forward a suitable resolution by Thanksgiving of 2017, nor did plaintiff hear again from any other Xerox representative, the suit claims.The plaintiff holds Xerox responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to maintain the subleased premises of a condition conducive to the operation of the machine, which caused plaintiff to agree to a more expensive unit.Defendant also misrepresented its ability to enter into a coterminous sublease and managed services agreements with Life Celebration until 2022.The plaintiff seeks an award of present and future lost profits in excess of $75,000 and declares the equipment lease and services agreement terminated coterminous with the sublease or, alternatively, award damages in the amount of Life Celebration's relocation costs to and expenses associated with, a suitable equivalent space identified by Life Celebration.They are represented by Richard A. Sprague, Joseph R. Podraza and Jr., William H. Trask of Sprague & Sprague in Philadelphia.U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:18-cv-02941-GEKP
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.