05
Case File
The case file contains 12 documents — witness statements and exhibits. Work only from these materials and from what you develop in your interviews.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · PURCHASE AGREEMENT WARRANTY
Exhibit m07.exh.001 — Equipment Purchase Agreement and Limited Warranty
Parties: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative ("Buyer") and Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC ("Seller") Agreement date: September 10, 2025 Subject: One bulk milk-cooling and refrigeration unit, installed Total price: $96,000.00
Reproduced below are the operative provisions of the signed agreement. Exhibit is offered as a true copy of the document in the co-op's file.
1. Equipment and Price. Seller shall furnish and install at Buyer's receiving station near Danforth one (1) bulk milk-cooling and refrigeration unit, together with the controls and condensing equipment described in the attached specification sheet, for the total price of Ninety-Six Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($96,000.00), payable per the schedule in Section 2.
3. Performance Specification. Seller warrants that, when installed and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the maintenance schedule attached as Schedule B, the Unit shall maintain the bulk tank contents at or below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40°F) and shall reduce fresh incoming milk to thirty-eight degrees Fahrenheit (38°F) within the pull-down time stated in the specification sheet.
7. Limited Warranty. Seller warrants the Unit to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of installation. Seller's obligation under this warranty is expressly limited to the repair or replacement, at Seller's option, of any part found by Seller to be defective. This is the Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy.
8. Exclusion of Consequential Damages. IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOST OR SPOILED PRODUCT, LOST PRODUCTION, LOST PROFITS, OR THE COST OF SUBSTITUTE COOLING. Buyer's remedies are limited to those stated in Section 7.
9. Buyer Maintenance Obligations. Buyer shall maintain the Unit in accordance with Schedule B, including cleaning of the condenser coils not less than quarterly, and shall keep the Unit registered with Seller. Failure to perform required maintenance may void warranty coverage as to defects caused by such failure.
11. Dispute Resolution. The parties shall first submit any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement to non-binding mediation. Any dispute not resolved in mediation shall be submitted to binding arbitration under the rules then in effect for commercial disputes, seated in Meridian.
Signature block: For Buyer, Nils Aaberg, General Manager, Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative. For Seller, Sylvia Brandt, Operations Manager, Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC. Dated September 10, 2025.
Attached as part of this exhibit: Schedule B — Maintenance Schedule (quarterly condenser cleaning; filter service; annual inspection).
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · INSTALLATION COMMISSIONING RECORD
Exhibit m07.exh.002 — Delivery, Installation, and Commissioning Record
Equipment: Bulk milk-cooling and refrigeration unit (per m07.exh.001) Site: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative receiving station, near Danforth, Voss County Delivery / install date: October 15, 2025
Delivery and installation. The Unit was delivered and set by a Brandt Refrigeration crew on October 15, 2025. The installation checklist portions covering placement, refrigerant line connection, control wiring, and power connection are marked complete and initialed by the crew.
Commissioning section — incomplete / disputed. The manufacturer's installation manual, referenced on the record, calls for a formal commissioning inspection and a monitored forty-eight (48) hour test run under load before the Unit is placed into production service. On this record, the line items for "48-hour monitored test run completed" and "commissioning inspection sign-off" are blank — neither initialed as done nor marked as waived.
Notation. A handwritten note in the margin of the co-op's copy reads: "Going live for peak — full test run deferred." The note is unsigned. The parties dispute how this notation came to be and whether the required commissioning test was ever performed.
Buyer acknowledgment. The record bears an acknowledgment of delivery signed by a co-op staff member. It does not separately certify that commissioning was completed.
This exhibit is offered to show the state of the commissioning documentation. The blank commissioning fields and the margin note are central to the dispute over whether required startup testing occurred.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · TEMPERATURE ALARM LOG
Exhibit m07.exh.003 — Milk-House Temperature and Alarm Log (Excerpts)
Keeper: Reuben Tuvang, milk-house operator Source: Handwritten milk-house shift log, Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative Excerpt range: November 2025 – December 2025
The following are transcribed excerpts of the operator's handwritten log for the three failure dates. Times are approximate as recorded on the floor.
Nov 3, 2025 — a.m. shift (Tuvang). "Came in ~5:40. HIGH TEMP ALARM sounding. Tank warm to the touch. My therm reads ~55°F. Compressor not holding. Milk in tank spoiled — approx 6,200 lb. Called Nils. Nils calling Brandt. Dumped load per Larkspur, ticket to follow."
Nov 24, 2025 — a.m. shift (Tuvang). "Tank temp climbing when I checked mid-shift. Compressor found OFF / locked out. No early alarm heard. By discovery load already warm — approx 5,800 lb affected. Larkspur will not accept. Brandt tech (Darius) out same day, replaced a contactor."
Dec 12–14, 2025 — weekend (entry made Mon a.m., Tuvang). "Weekend — no continuous floor coverage. Temp drifted up over Sat/Sun. Monday reading well above spec. Approx 7,000 lb downgraded, then dumped — Larkspur reject. Brandt tech out, cleaned condenser coils (fouled), reset controls."
Operator note (undated, end of December). "Ran short two people in Nov. Scheduled condenser cleaning slipped that month. Coils were dirtier than the schedule allows by the time Darius got to them in Dec. Noting for the file."
This exhibit is offered as the contemporaneous operator record of the three temperature failures. The operator's handwritten log is kept separately from the unit's internal controller, whose recoverable data is presently unknown.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · SERVICE CALL REPORTS
Exhibit m07.exh.004 — Brandt Field Service Call Reports (Three Visits)
Servicer: Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC Technician: Darius Pelletier Customer: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative
Transcribed from the three Brandt service tickets in the co-op's file.
Service Ticket 1 — November 3, 2025. Complaint: "Unit lost temperature overnight; tank warm; product loss reported by customer." Findings/Work: "Compressor locked out on arrival. Reset controls. Metered incoming power — possible incoming power irregularity noted on one leg; advise customer have electrician verify service. Unit running on departure." Tech: D. Pelletier.
Service Ticket 2 — November 24, 2025. Complaint: "Compressor off; second temperature failure; product loss reported." Findings/Work: "Found failed contactor. Replaced contactor. Verified operation. Recommend customer keep condenser maintenance current per Schedule B; coils beginning to foul." Tech: D. Pelletier.
Service Ticket 3 — December 12, 2025. Complaint: "Temperature drift over weekend; third failure; product downgraded." Findings/Work: "Condenser coils fouled — cleaned coils. Reset control board. Head pressure high on arrival consistent with fouled coils. Reiterated power-supply concern from prior visit. Recommend electrical service check and adherence to maintenance schedule." Tech: D. Pelletier.
This exhibit is offered as the servicer's contemporaneous account of each visit. It reflects Brandt's two recurring themes — a suspected power-supply irregularity and fouled condenser coils — as well as the specific repairs performed.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · PROCESSOR REJECTION TICKETS
Exhibit m07.exh.005 — Larkspur Creamery Rejection Tickets and Credit Memos
Processor: Larkspur Creamery Grader: Corinne Callahan Supplier: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative
Transcribed summary of the three rejection tickets and associated credit memos in the co-op's file.
Rejection Ticket A — November 3, 2025. Load: bulk milk, Cloverdyke. Reason: "Received warm / out of temperature. Bacteria screen fail. REJECTED — dumped." Quantity affected: approx. 6,200 lb. Associated credit memo: quality deduction and non-payment for rejected load.
Rejection Ticket B — November 24, 2025. Load: bulk milk, Cloverdyke. Reason: "Received warm. REJECTED — dumped." Quantity affected: approx. 5,800 lb. Associated credit memo: quality deduction and non-payment for rejected load.
Rejection Ticket C — December 15, 2025 (weekend load). Load: bulk milk, Cloverdyke. Reason: "Downgraded then rejected — temperature abuse over weekend. Dumped." Quantity affected: approx. 7,000 lb. Associated credit memo: quality deduction and non-payment for rejected load.
Summary of loss reflected: Approximately 19,000 pounds of milk rejected across the three events, plus loss of the quality premium on the affected loads. These figures form part of the co-op's approximately $28,000 consequential-loss calculation, which also includes emergency repairs and the rented portable cooling trailer.
This exhibit is offered as the third-party processor's documentation of the rejected loads. Grader Callahan notes the co-op otherwise runs a clean operation and attributes these three rejections to warm milk on arrival.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · DEMAND AND DENIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Exhibit m07.exh.006 — Warranty-Claim Demand Letter and Brandt Denial
This exhibit collects two letters: the co-op's warranty-claim demand and Brandt's response. Reproduced as true copies from the file.
Letter 1 — Cloverdyke Demand
Date: January 20, 2026 From: Nils Aaberg, General Manager, Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative To: Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC
Dear Ms. Brandt:
I am writing on behalf of Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative regarding the bulk milk-cooling unit your company sold and installed for us on October 15, 2025. As you know, the unit failed to hold temperature three separate times in its first two months of service — on November 3, November 24, and over the weekend of December 12. Each failure spoiled a full load of milk. In total we lost roughly nineteen thousand pounds of milk, our quality premium on those loads, and we have paid out of pocket for emergency repairs and a rented portable cooling trailer to keep operating.
The unit has not performed as your agreement promised. We are asking that Brandt replace the unit with equipment that will actually hold our milk cold, and that Brandt make the co-op whole for our losses from these failures, which we currently calculate at approximately $28,000, in addition to the unit itself.
Please respond within fourteen days. We would prefer to resolve this cooperatively.
Sincerely, Nils Aaberg
Letter 2 — Brandt Response
Date: February 5, 2026 From: Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC To: Nils Aaberg, Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative
Dear Mr. Aaberg:
We received your letter. We take the performance of our equipment seriously, and our technician responded promptly to each of your service calls.
Our review indicates that the failures were caused by conditions outside our equipment — specifically, an irregularity in the electrical service at your facility and a lapse in the required condenser maintenance, both of which our service reports document. Under our written warranty, our obligation is limited to the repair or replacement of defective parts, and the agreement expressly excludes consequential damages such as spoiled product and substitute cooling costs.
Accordingly, we decline your request for payment of the claimed losses. We remain willing to re-inspect the unit and to repair any part we determine to be defective, consistent with the warranty. Please contact our office to arrange an inspection.
Regards, Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · ENGINEER INSPECTION REPORT
Exhibit m07.exh.007 — Independent Refrigeration Engineer Inspection Report
Prepared by: Ingemar Rask, P.E., consulting refrigeration engineer Retained by: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative Inspection date: February 27, 2026 Report date: March 3, 2026
Reproduced summary of the engineer's written inspection report. Observations and findings only.
Scope. Inspect the installed bulk milk-cooling unit at the Cloverdyke receiving station; review the operator temperature log and the servicer's reports; form an independent opinion on the cause of the repeated temperature failures.
Observations — refrigeration system.
- The condensing unit's refrigerant charge and expansion-valve setting were found outside the correct range for this equipment and application, indicating the system was not properly charged and adjusted at installation.
- Sizing analysis against the co-op's peak incoming volume shows the unit as configured to be marginally undersized for peak load, with little capacity margin.
Observations — electrical supply.
- A voltage imbalance was measured on one leg of the milk-house three-phase panel. Voltage imbalance stresses a compressor and can contribute to nuisance trips.
Observations — maintenance.
- Condenser coils showed evidence of prior fouling. Fouled coils raise head pressure and degrade cooling; the servicer cleaned the coils on the December visit.
Findings on causation. Causation is mixed. The report identifies (a) an installation/configuration defect in the unit, (b) inadequate capacity margin for the operation, and (c) an electrical-supply imbalance on the building side, with (d) intermittent coil fouling as an aggravating factor. The report states that a unit charged, adjusted, and sized as this one was found would operate without a safety margin even under good maintenance, and that the observed pattern of repeated failures is consistent with such a system stressed by both configuration and power problems.
This exhibit is offered as the co-op's independent engineering assessment. It supports both a defect theory and a mixed-causation picture that the opposing party will use.
CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · ELECTRICIAN NOTE
Exhibit m07.exh.008 — Ostrowski Electrical Service Note (Pre-Purchase Panel Warning)
Electrician: Dale Ostrowski (independent electrical contractor) Customer: Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative Service note date: April 2025 (several months before the cooling-unit purchase)
Transcribed from a service invoice/note found in the co-op's maintenance file. This document is internal to the co-op and was not part of the Brandt transaction.
Service note. "Responded to intermittent breaker complaint at receiving station. Checked main and subpanels. Advised customer that the existing three-phase panel serving the milk-house is undersized and aging for the current and expected load, and shows signs of wear. Recommended a panel upgrade and a dedicated circuit for any new large refrigeration equipment. Customer to consider budget for upgrade. Temporary fix applied to the immediate breaker complaint."
Handwritten margin note (co-op file). "Board reviewed — upgrade deferred this cycle to hold down costs. Revisit."
This exhibit is offered for its bearing on the electrical-supply issue and on the co-op's pre-purchase knowledge of a panel problem. It is sensitive: it shows the co-op was warned about the panel and deferred the upgrade. Counsel should weigh how and whether it surfaces, and be aware the general manager treats the pre-purchase warning as a delicate subject.
WITNESS STATEMENT · WITNESS TUVANG
Witness Statement — Reuben Tuvang
Witness: Reuben Tuvang, milk-house operator, Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative Taken: April 8, 2026, at the co-op receiving station near Danforth, Voss County, Meridian Form: Signed first-person statement
My name is Reuben Tuvang. I have worked the milk-house floor at Cloverdyke for a little over nine years. My job is to receive the loads coming in from our member farms, watch the bulk tank, run the wash cycles, and keep the logs. If the milk isn't cold, that's the first thing I'm supposed to catch, so I pay attention to the tank temperature all shift.
The new Brandt unit went in the middle of October. I wasn't the one who dealt with the sales side or the contract — that's Nils. But I was there when they installed it and I'm the one who ran it day to day after that.
The first failure was November 3rd. I came in early, and the high-temperature alarm was already sounding. The tank had climbed way up — it felt warm through the wall of the tank, which it never should. I checked my thermometer and it was up around fifty-five degrees. There was nothing to do at that point. That milk was already spoiled. We had better than six thousand pounds in there and it all had to go down the drain. I called Nils right away and he called Brandt.
The second time was November 24th. That one the compressor just shut off. I didn't hear an alarm right at first the way I did the first time, and by the time I saw the temperature moving the load was already past saving. That was another big loss, close to what we lost the first time.
The third one, December 12th, was over a weekend. Weekends we don't have somebody standing in the milk-house the whole time. The temperature drifted up slow, and when we got to it Monday the milk was downgraded. Larkspur wouldn't take it.
I want to be clear about the logs. The unit has its own controller that's supposed to record temperatures, but I also keep my own log by hand, every shift, on paper. I've done that for years, before this unit and after. My handwritten log shows the date and time of all three of these. I trust my own log because I write it down myself.
When Darius, the Brandt technician, came out, I heard him say the condenser coils were dirty and he said something about the power coming in maybe not being steady. I'm not an electrician so I can't tell you if he was right about the power. I clean the coils when I'm told to and when I have time. I know there was a stretch in November where we were short-handed and a cleaning got put off, but I don't set that schedule.
Whether the machine kept its own temperature history in its memory or wrote over it, I honestly don't know. That's not something I work with. I just know what I saw and what I wrote down.
/s/ Reuben Tuvang
WITNESS STATEMENT · WITNESS PELLETIER
Witness Statement — Darius Pelletier
Witness: Darius Pelletier, field service technician, Brandt Refrigeration Systems, LLC Taken: April 22, 2026, by telephone; memorialized statement reviewed and adopted by the witness Form: Signed first-person statement
I'm Darius Pelletier. I've been a field service technician with Brandt Refrigeration for about seven years. I'm the tech who went out to the Cloverdyke co-op on all three of their service calls this past fall and winter, so I'm the one who actually put hands on the unit each time.
I was part of the crew that installed the unit back in October, and I did the service calls after. On the first call, in early November, the compressor had locked out. I reset the controls and checked it over. It ran when I left. On the second call, later in November, I found a failed contactor and I replaced it. On the third call, in December, I cleaned the condenser coils, which were fouled, and I reset the control board again.
Every time I was out there, I wrote a service report. I try to be accurate in those. On at least one of them I noted that there was a possible incoming power irregularity, because when I metered the supply I saw the voltage on one leg wasn't sitting where I'd want it. I'm not the electrician of record for their building, so I flagged it as something for them to have checked. I also noted more than once that the condenser coils were fouled and that they needed to keep up the maintenance on the schedule that came with the unit. Dirty coils make a unit like this work harder and run hot, and in bad cases that can push a compressor to trip.
I'll be straight about what I can and can't say. I can tell you what I found each time and what I did. I can't tell you for certain what the root cause of the whole pattern was — whether it was the power, the coils, something in how the unit was set up at install, or some combination. From my end, the two things I kept seeing were the power reading on that one leg and the coils being dirtier than they should have been.
On the install itself, I did the work I was assigned. Questions about how the unit was sized for their operation, or about the commissioning process and whether the full test run was done, are above my pay grade — that's the office and the sales side, not me. I did my service work and I documented it.
/s/ Darius Pelletier
WITNESS STATEMENT · WITNESS RASK
Witness Statement — Ingemar Rask, P.E.
Witness: Ingemar Rask, P.E., consulting refrigeration engineer (retained by Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative) Taken: May 12, 2026; signed statement summarizing the February 27, 2026 inspection Form: Signed first-person expert statement (facts and observations)
My name is Ingemar Rask. I am a licensed professional engineer and I consult on commercial and agricultural refrigeration systems. Cloverdyke Dairy Cooperative retained me to inspect the bulk milk-cooling unit that Brandt Refrigeration installed at their receiving station and to give my independent opinion about why it repeatedly failed to hold temperature. I inspected the installed unit on site on February 27, 2026, and reviewed the operator's temperature logs and the technician's service reports.
I want to be careful to separate what I observed from what I infer. Here is what I observed.
First, on the refrigeration side, the condensing unit's refrigerant charge and the setting on its expansion valve were not where they should be for this equipment and this application. In plain terms, the system was not set up correctly at installation, and a system charged and adjusted that way will struggle to pull down and hold temperature under real load. Second, when I ran the numbers for the co-op's peak incoming volume, the unit as configured is marginally undersized for that peak load. It has little margin. On a mild day it might keep up; on a heavy day, or with any other stress on the system, it is at the edge.
Separately, on the electrical side, I measured a voltage imbalance on one leg of the milk-house's three-phase panel. A voltage imbalance is hard on a compressor and can contribute to nuisance trips. I did observe that.
Now the harder question is causation, and I will be honest that it is mixed. This is not a case where I can point to one single cause. I see an installation and configuration problem with the unit itself, I see a unit with very little capacity margin for this operation, and I see a real electrical-supply issue on the building side. Any one of those can hurt cooling performance, and here more than one was present at the same time. The repeated pattern of failures is consistent with a system that had too little margin and was then stressed by both a setup problem and a power problem.
I also cannot rule out that fouled condenser coils contributed on the specific days when maintenance had lapsed, because dirty coils raise head pressure and make everything worse. What I can say is that even a perfectly maintained unit, charged and adjusted the way I found this one, and sized the way this one is, would have been operating without a safety margin.
/s/ Ingemar Rask, P.E.
WITNESS STATEMENT · WITNESS CALLAHAN
Witness Statement — Corinne Callahan
Witness: Corinne Callahan, receiving grader, Larkspur Creamery Taken: May 19, 2026, at Larkspur Creamery Form: Signed first-person statement
I'm Corinne Callahan. I work the receiving dock at Larkspur Creamery as a grader. When milk comes in, I check it — temperature, smell, the antibiotic and bacteria screens, the paperwork — and I decide whether we take the load, downgrade it, or reject it. I've been doing this work for eleven years. Cloverdyke is one of our supply co-ops and I handle their loads regularly.
There were three loads from Cloverdyke this past fall and winter that I could not accept. I don't have the exact dates memorized, but they're on my tickets, and they line up with when the co-op told us their cooler was having trouble.
Each of those three, the milk came in warm and off. Warm milk grows bacteria fast, and once it's out of temperature for long enough there's nothing to be done with it — it can't go into product. When that happens I write it up on a rejection ticket, note the temperature and the reason, and the load gets dumped. Then our office issues the paperwork on it, the credit memos and the quality deductions, so the accounting is clean on both sides.
I want to be fair to Cloverdyke here. In my experience they run a good, clean operation, and Reuben over there keeps careful records. These three loads weren't a case of sloppy handling on the farm side that I could see. The milk was warm when it reached me, and from what they told me their tank cooler had failed. My job is just to grade what shows up on my dock, and what showed up those three times could not be used. I documented each one the same way I document any rejection.
I can produce copies of the three rejection tickets and the related credit memos if they're needed. Beyond grading the milk and writing it up, I don't have any knowledge about the cooling equipment itself or whose fault the failures were.
/s/ Corinne Callahan
Instructor materials (master fact pattern, teaching notes, answer
guidance) are maintained separately and are not part of the student packet.
FACULTY PORTAL · COMING SOON