Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 12, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Charles W. Strecker, operating as Orleans Cabinet Works, filed a claim against Credico Financial, Inc. for payment of custom-manufactured office furniture. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana awarded Strecker $3,704.22, calculated as the contract price minus the proceeds from selling the furniture to another buyer. Credico contested the trial court's finding of an oral contract, the awarded amount, and claimed that Strecker failed to mitigate his damages.
Strecker, with 40 years of experience in custom furniture, had previously engaged in over 90 jobs for Credico without written contracts, relying on schematic floor plans for each project. In late 1979 or early 1980, Credico's vice president, Don McBrayer, contacted Strecker to design a layout for their expanding Vicksburg office. After a series of meetings where layouts were discussed, McBrayer indicated a need for furniture within a month. However, after Strecker completed the furniture, Credico delayed delivery, stating they were still finalizing their lease. Despite multiple follow-ups from Strecker, he was not informed that Credico no longer wanted the furniture. After two years of storage, he sold the furniture for $600. Credico's management claimed they were unaware that the furniture had been constructed until shortly before the lawsuit.
Credico disputes the existence of an oral contract with plaintiff McBrayer, arguing that the telephone numbers listed for McBrayer were inactive until October 1980, after the furniture was allegedly made. McBrayer's wife sought delivery information for months before receiving the Gulfport numbers. Credico contests the trial court's finding of consent to the contract, citing its managers' denials and the absence of inferred consent from actions. However, the court determined that consent is a factual issue, relying on the plaintiff's testimony that he was instructed to complete the furniture within one month, which contradicted Credico's claims.
Credico also challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the oral contract under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2277, which mandates at least one credible witness for contracts over $500. While Credico acknowledges that a litigant can be deemed a credible witness, it argues that the plaintiff’s testimony lacked corroboration. The trial court, however, found the plaintiff's testimony credible and logical, citing the implausibility of the plaintiff undertaking construction without the defendant's confirmation. It concluded that there was a valid, enforceable oral contract based on the overall evidence presented, despite Credico's witnesses' assertions that no order existed. The court noted that the defendant's actions suggested a repudiation of the contract after the plaintiff was prepared to deliver the furniture. The testimony of Credico's witnesses ultimately corroborated the plaintiff's claims.
The defendant in Aydell argued there were no corroborating circumstances for the alleged oral contract, which the First Circuit rejected. The court noted that the custom doors ordered by the plaintiffs indicated the existence of an oral contract, supported by similar findings in Jolley Elevator Co. v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, where ordering materials was also deemed corroborative. The trial judge and the appellate court agreed that the plaintiff's actions in ordering materials and building furniture corroborated the oral contract's existence under C.C. Art. 2277.
Credico contested the exclusion of testimony regarding its corporate procedures to argue that McBrayer lacked authority to order furniture, but the trial judge denied this because Credico did not plead lack of capacity as an affirmative defense. The judge's discretion in this matter was upheld, as the plaintiff was unaware of the agency defense until mid-trial, and no prior discovery had been made on this issue. Despite management changes, the plaintiff had consistently dealt with McBrayer and Falgoust, who had apparent authority to bind Credico to contracts. Testimony about the agency defense was correctly disallowed, and the court determined it lacked substance.
Regarding quantum, Credico argued the award amount was unsubstantiated. The plaintiff testified that the price of $4,304.22 was based on a cost-plus-profit model, consistent with past contracts. There was no evidence from Credico disputing the plaintiff's calculations, leading the trial court to properly accept the plaintiff’s testimony in determining the contract price.
Credico contends that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by delaying the sale of furniture for two years, ultimately selling it for only $600. Citing legal precedents, Credico argues that a seller must act promptly to minimize losses by reselling rejected goods at the best possible price. However, the case is complicated by the fact that there was no formal sale contract, and the plaintiff was not informed by Credico that it would not accept the furniture; instead, he was instructed to await further notification. Credico's representatives did not refuse delivery until shortly before the lawsuit was initiated, and the plaintiff sold the furniture shortly after filing.
Credico also disputes the $600 sale price by arguing it was unreasonable given the furniture's stated value of $4,304.22. The furniture was custom-designed for Credico and not easily resellable without modifications. Testimony indicated that similar used furniture sold for about $300, and the manager of E-Z TV Rental confirmed that he had previously purchased similar items for $300 to $400 but ultimately agreed to pay $600 for the Credico furniture.
The trial court recognized the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate damages, noting the uncontested testimony regarding the sale price. The court found the price reasonable and commended the plaintiff's attempts to minimize losses, affirming the district court's judgment.
