Pyramid Tech Indst. v. Thomas G. Faria Corp. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE

In what one would have anticipated to be a simple collection matter, these parties have generated 53 full exhibits and a voluminous folio of exhibits for ID only.

While the basic dispute is over the amount the plaintiff alleges it is due for the expense it incurred in providing the defendant with sea faring “transducers,” the parties went into a substantial digression to explore a settlement the parties reached on the defendant's claim of defective products.   This was also stated as a special defense by the defendant, but no specific damage items evolved.

The plaintiff's claim was basically for breach of contract, alleging it is due $27,000 for 9,000 units of 20 foot wire at $3.00 per unit.   A count for “intentional loss” appears to have been abandoned by briefing time and is dismissed.

The defendant offered evidence of defective products but left the court to assume that this was addressed in the “settlement” referred to above.   In any event, the losses were not quantified, nor was it suggested that the “settlement” contemplated this dispute.

DISCUSSION

The defendant's response to the plaintiff's basic claim was that it was not responsible for the full amount because the plaintiff had ordered additional units over and above what the defendant ordered to safe guard its market positions as to future orders.   The plaintiff ordered 6,000 additional units-at least its vice president so testified.   The plaintiff did not prove the defendant agreed to pay for the items obtained for further orders.

It developed that 619 units were used by the plaintiff for testing and scrap and that the additional units ordered for market purposes did not total 6,000.   In an e-mail, the plaintiff stated the units on hand to be 5235 on February 21, 2007 (Exhibit F).  Daniel Dion, the defendant's director of purchasing, in response to a question from the court, stated that at the time of the switch over from the use of 20' wire to 26' wire, 4,745 units were on hand.

Defendant's brief argues that 5,400 units were over ordered and were then reduced by the 619 units referred to above, “leaving less then 3,000 foot wire on hand that was ordered to fulfill the defendant's purchase orders rather than the 9,000 claimed.”   Deducting 619 from 5,400 leaves 4,781, not less than 3,000.

One can obtain different results by adopting other figures advanced by the parties.   For example, from the defendant's total orders of 13,225 units reduced by the 8,480 paid for, 4,745 units would remain.  (Per Mr. Dion.)

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 is of no assistance to it or the court in evaluating the claimed 9,000 balance.   Purchase orders totaling 14,781 units are shown in the Exhibit. (19,225 in the plaintiff's brief.)   Deducting the 14,781 for the total wire ordered by the plaintiff (18,400) leaves 3,619.   The court cannot reconcile the 14,781 of the exhibit with the plaintiff's computation in its brief.

It would appear that the defendant's order # 55353 for $6,000 units was not used to arrive at the 9,000 figure for Ex. 1.

Thus, one can arrive at various figures reflecting the units on hand depending on the “mix and match” computations utilized, including 3,619, 4,170, 4,745, 6,000, 4,781 and 2,781 (excluding the 619 units scrapped or tested).

Amongst the questions raised by the parties' use of different figures are these:

1. Adding 619 to 5400 yields 6,019+.  Was this the 6,000 used in Exhibit 1?

2. The plaintiff states 19,225 units were ordered (Brief, page 2.) Exhibit 1 suggests 18,400 were received by the plaintiff.   Applying the 6,000 figure produces either 13,225 or 12,400.   How do we get to 9,000?

3. It was represented to the court that the plaintiff would “connect up” the 19,225 units listed in its Exhibit 16.   Not only was it not “connected up,” but the 6,000 units item is set out as ordered and billed.   This exhibit appears to show orders (19,225) in excess of plaintiff's invoices (18,400).

In summary, the plaintiff has not sustained its burden to prove a breach of contract, nor has it demonstrated what damages it sustained for the alleged breach.

Judgment may enter for the defendant.

Anthony V. DeMayo, J.T.R.

DeMayo, Anthony V., J.T.R.