Citation[edit | edit source]

Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. Cybo Sys., Inc., 17 F.Supp.2d 151 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (full-text).

Factual Background[edit | edit source]

Robotic Vision Systems (“RVS”) made and sold adaptive robotic welding systems, which are preprogrammed robots designed to weld pieces of metal used in manufacturing tanks and excavators. Cybo sells robots and robot systems. RVS agreed to sell assets to Cybo which were necessary to construct a turnkey adaptive robotic welding system, for $537,000. Cybo planned to sell the system to Caterpillar, Inc. and install it in a Caterpillar plant.

RVS sued Cybo to recover the balance of the purchase price. Cybo counterclaimed that RVS (1) fraudulently induced it into entering the agreement, (2) made fraudulent misrepresentations during performance, and (3) made additional misrepresentations that prevented Cybo from discovering that RVS had not performed its obligations under the agreement. RVS allegedly misrepresented the assets to be sold, the reliability of the software, the adequacy of the proposed performance milestones and whether the milestones had been met, the need for additional engineering, the need for additional engineers, RVS’s gross margins and its profits from after-sale service and provision of parts, and the amount of technical support it would provide.

Trial Court Proceedings[edit | edit source]

RVS’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to Cybo’s claims that RVS fraudulently induced it to enter into the agreement by misrepresenting the assets to be sold and by misleading it into believing that the assistance of two robot technicians would suffice. RVS’s motion was granted as to all other claims, because Cybo failed to raise a factual issue as to reliance.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.