Building Materials Wholesale Inc. v. Triad Drywall LLC

The Court of Appeals reversed a subcontractor's jury award of damages, since the record did not contain sufficient evidence of the lost profits in that it did not contain the subcontractor's anticipated expenses associated with its work on a building project.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Triad Drywall, LLC sued Building Materials Wholesale, Inc. “BMW” for breach of contract. A Fulton County jury awarded Triad $160,000 in damages and $14,480 in attorney fees. BMW appeals from the judgment entered in accordance with the verdict. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages for breach of contract and Triad’s attorney fees claim. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence shows that Triad is in the business of installing drywall, metal studs, and acoustic ceilings in commercial and large residential building projects. Triad purchased materials from a number of suppliers, including BMW.

In May 2003, Triad received a letter from Aviation Constructors, Inc. in which Aviation expressed its intent to hire Triad as a subcontractor on the Bartow Center, Phase I, Floyd College project the “Project”, conditioned upon Aviation receiving a construction contract for the project. As part of its job preparation, Triad solicited quotes from material suppliers. Through its salesman, David Dye, BMW submitted a “project quotation” for the “Floyd College Campus Phase I” which, along with a price schedule, indicated a “Bid Date: 10/22/2003,” “Expires: 4th quarter 2004,” and notation at the bottom that “Prices good until next manufacturer’s increase.” Triad’s operation manager, Ziv Gal, contacted Dye and told him that Triad would be purchasing its material through BMW.

Building Materials Wholesale Inc. v. Triad Drywall LLC

The Court of Appeals reversed a subcontractor's jury award of damages, since the record did not contain sufficient evidence of the lost profits in that it did not contain the subcontractor's anticipated expenses associated with its work on a building project.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report