Pendley Quality Trailer Supply Inc. v. B&F Plastics Inc.

Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim for fraud where it presented no evidence showing that it lost customers due to plaintiff's allegedly fraudulent behavior.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

B & F Plastics, Inc. “B & F” sued Pendley Quality Trailer Supply, Inc. “Pendley Quality” for allegedly failing to pay for goods purchased from B & F. Pendley Quality counterclaimed, asserting that B & F was liable for, among other things, fraud and breach of implied and express warranties. Following a jury trial, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of B & F on Pendley Quality’s fraud claim. The case was submitted to the jury on the breach of warranty claims, and the jury awarded Pendley Quality $60,000.1 The trial court then entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict JNOV for B & F, and this appeal ensued. For reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. A trial court properly grants a motion for directed verdict when there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence, construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion, demands a particular verdict.2 We review the trial court’s grant of such motion under the “any evidence” test.3

Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that B & F manufactures rubber products such as mud flaps and rubber wall liners. Pendley Quality, which sells products to the horse trailer industry, purchased rubber wall liners from B & F. The liners had an adhesive backing that used pressure sensitive adhesives PSA. Pendley Quality distributed the liners to trailer manufacturers, which attached the liners to trailer walls with the PSA backing. Steven Pendley of Pendley Quality testified that, because of the oil in the extruded rubber, he had difficulty finding a PSA that would cause the liner to adhere to the wall of a horse trailer. According to Pendley, he worked with a company called Avery Dennison to develop a PSA that would keep the liner adhered to the wall. Thus, when Pendley initially met Paul Bertsch of B & F to discuss purchasing the liners, Pendley specifically asked that the liners be manufactured using Avery Dennison PSA.

Pendley Quality Trailer Supply Inc. v. B&F Plastics Inc.

Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim for fraud where it presented no evidence showing that it lost customers due to plaintiff's allegedly fraudulent behavior.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report