CompFox AI Summary
This case is an appeal of a trial court's order granting class certification in a suit against Microsoft Corporation. The appellees, Mark Manning, Steve Collins, and Dana Schnitzer, sued Microsoft alleging breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection acts related to the faulty DoubleSpace disk compression feature in MS-DOS 6.0 software. They sought damages for the $9.95 upgrade cost to MS-DOS 6.2, which corrected the defect, rather than consequential damages for data loss. Microsoft appealed the class certification, citing issues such as an unrecognized liability theory, improper claim splitting, lack of commonality and typicality, inadequate class representation, and improper reliance on expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the class certification order, concluding that the purchase of a defective product, even without manifest data loss, constitutes sufficient injury, and that the class action met all the requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Microsoft Corp. v. Manning is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana). This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case is an appeal of a trial court's order granting class certification in a suit against Microsoft Corporation. The appellees, Mark Manning, Steve Collins, and Dana Schnitzer, sued Microsoft alleging breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection acts related to the faulty DoubleSpace disk compression feature in MS-DOS 6.0 software. They sought damages for the $9.95 upgrade cost to MS-DOS 6.2, which corrected the defect, rather than consequential damages for data loss. Microsoft appealed the class certification, citing issues such as an unrecognized liability theory, improper claim splitting, lack of commonality and typicality, inadequate class representation, and improper reliance on expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the class certification order, concluding that the purchase of a defective product, even without manifest data loss, constitutes sufficient injury, and that the class action met all the requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.