 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Protek11/7/2005
gs for the bolts were not approved by Protek until February 14, 2002, the March 29, 2002, due date did not provide LES with the requisite 12-14 week lead time set forth in the quotation. These dates, however, were eventually modified at the request of LES.
{ } "51. The failure to meet delivery dates was due to problems LES was having with its tooling for the bolts. (Tr., at 307-308.)
{ } "52. LES kept assuring Protek that the problems with the tooling would be resolved. (Tr., at 311.) Protek continued to reorder bolts from LES due to LES's assurances that the bolts would be delivered by delivery dates. (Tr., at 190, 254, 607-608.) Additionally, Protek made a business decision not to change suppliers because that would delay delivery of bolts even more due to the lead time needed for a new supplier to obtain tooling. (Tr., at 309, 355.)"
{ } Upon review of the evidence and the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we find the trial court did not err in awarding LES contract damages on its counterclaim. The trial court properly concluded some of the delivery dates requested by Protek were unreasonable. The non-conformance rate of the product was acceptable under industry standards, and Protek contracted for 2.1 million bolts, which LES delivered. Protek has not paid $112,670.23 of the invoices sent by LES, but was paid more than $2 million by Goodyear for the tank pads Protek supplied to Goodyear. Accordingly, the trial court properly offset Protek's award by the amount owed on the invoices.
{ } Protek's third assignment of error is overruled.
{ } On cross-appeal, LES assigns as error:
{ } "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING LAKE ERIE BREACHED THE CONTRACT.
{ } "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT LAKE ERIE'S WARRANTY FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
{ } "III. THE TRIAL COURT'S AWARD OF $155,941.18 TO PROTEK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.
{ } "IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAILING TO AWARD LAKE ERIE STATUOTRY PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM."
{ } Again, we review cross-appellant's arguments under a manifest weight of the evidence standard.
CROSS-APPEAL I
{ } In the first assignment of error, LES asserts Protek, not LES breached the parties' agreement. The evidence adduced at trial indicates Protek contracted for and received 2.1 million bolts. Therefore, Protek breached the agreement by withholding full payment from LES
{ } LES maintains Protek waived the delivery dates by making a business decision to continue its relationship with LES after the initial delivery dates passed. LES notes Protek issued twelve additional purchase orders after having knowledge LES was having difficulty acquiring the necessary tooling. Therefore, LES asserts the trial court erred in finding LES breached the agreement.
{ } Upon review of the evidence, the trial court properly concluded LES continually failed to meet delivery deadlines throughout performance of the parties' agreement. At the time the agreement was made, LES was aware of problems Protek was having with its then supplier, and knew time was of the essence in the agreement. The evidence at trial indicated the failure to meet some delivery dates was due to problems LES was having with its tooling for the bolts. LES continually assured Protek the problems with tooling would be resolved, and Protek's business decision not to change suppliers was due to the lead time needed for a new supplier to obtain tooling. Furthermore, testimony at trial established there were times when LES represented to Protek bolts were being 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.
|
|