 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Protek11/7/2005
to LES it did not have clearer prints. As a result, LES was required to draft its own set of prints. Protek approved prints for six different types of bolts in February 2002, and sent approval of the prints to LES on February 14, 2002. Prior to the approval, however, Protek placed a purchase order for quantities of five of the six types of bolts. The purchase order was dated January 4, 2002, and required delivery of the bolts by March 29, 2002. A second purchase order was placed on January 11, 2002, requiring delivery by April 1, 2002.
{ } On February 21, 2002, LES contacted Protek and asked Protek to prioritize the delivery dates for the initial purchase orders, since "currently [LES has] all parts slated for 4/1/02" and in talking with LES' "tooling engineers this is unrealistic" and LES needs "to spread them out somewhat." In response, Protek prioritized the bolt orders.
{ } On March 8, 2002, LES proposed a modification to the delivery dates set forth in the initial purchase orders. Protek did not object. The first delivery of bolts did not occur until April 16, 2002.
{ } Despite the late delivery, Protek issued additional purchase orders from March 27, 2002, to April 24, 2002. The problems relating to delivery were ongoing throughout the parties' relationship.
{ } Some of the bolts LES shipped to Protek were nonconforming. The problem lead to LES implementing a corrective action plan in which LES agreed to "100% containment" visually inspecting all parts shipped to Protek. In the end, LES continued to ship some nonconforming product.
{ } Protek filed a complaint in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on January 14, 2003, alleging breach of contract. LES filed a counterclaim alleging money owed on account. On February 2, 2004, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court requested the parties file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On December 14, 2004, the trial court, via Judgment Entry, issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court concluded LES had not delivered the bolts in a timely manner and had breached a material term of the parties' agreement. The court awarded Protek $155,941.18 for its costs arising from a customer charge-back and expedited shipping. The trial court offset the award to Protek by the amount of LES' counterclaim for unpaid invoices in the amount of $112,670.23. Accordingly, the trial court awarded Protek a net judgment in the amount of $43,270.93.
{ } It is from the December 14, 2004, Judgment Entry both parties now appeal.
{ } On appeal, Protek assigns as error:
{ } "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, IN FAILING TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ALL OF ITS DAMAGES TO WHICH THE TRIAL COURT HAD RULED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED AS A RESULT OF DEFENDANTS BREACHES.
{ } "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AGAINST THE MAINFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDNENCE, IN CONCLUDING THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DID NOT WARRANT 100% DEFECT FREE PARTS, THUS FAILING TO AWARD PLAINTIFF INCIDENTAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM DEFENDANT'S BREACH OF THIS WARRANTY.
{ } "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN AWARDING DEFENDANT CONTRACT DAMAGES ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM AFTER THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY RULED THAT DEFENDANT HAD BREACHED, BY VIRTUE OF ITS FAILURES TO PERFORM, THE VERY CONTRACT UPON WHICH THIS COUNTERCLAIM AWARD WAS PREDICATED."
I.
{ } In the first assignment of error, Protek argues the trial court erred in failing to award all of its damages as a result of LES' breach of contract.
{ } We review appellant's arguments under a ma
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|