Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rutledge Industrial Corp. v. Talladega Foundry & Machine Co.
Citations: 582 So. 2d 436; 1991 Ala. LEXIS 81; 1991 WL 31706Docket: 89-857
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; February 14, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Talladega Foundry and Machine Company, Inc. sued Rutledge Industrial Corporation for $66,910.56, asserting this amount was due for work performed. Rutledge counterclaimed, alleging breaches of express and implied warranties and breach of contract. The jury ruled in favor of Talladega Foundry, awarding the full amount claimed. Rutledge appealed, contending the trial court wrongly denied its request for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The agreement between the two parties required Rutledge to maintain its account within 45 days of receiving invoices and allowed for full credit on rejected castings. On August 15, 1988, Talladega Foundry sent Rutledge a certified statement detailing a balance of $87,143.56, inviting any disputes within ten days. Rutledge did not respond within that timeframe but later sent partial payments, reducing the balance to $66,910.56. Rutledge's appeal reiterated its counterclaim arguments, asserting defects in Talladega Foundry’s products and failure to provide credits for returned items. Legal precedent establishes that an account stated is an agreement acknowledging the correctness of a balance, which, if not disputed in a reasonable time, is considered an admission of correctness. The court noted that the certified mailing of the statement to Rutledge supported its receipt, as evidenced by a postal green card. The testimony from Talladega Foundry’s marketing manager confirmed no objections or claims of offsets were communicated by Rutledge after the statement was received, and subsequent payments were made, reinforcing the validity of the account stated. The amount due from Rutledge Industrial Corporation to Talladega Foundry is established at $66,910.56, a figure that Rutledge's general manager, Robert Bennett, did not contest. There is no written dispute from Rutledge regarding this amount as of August 15. The court found that Rutledge was not entitled to either a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J.N.O.V.) or a new trial, as it failed to properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in its motions. Although Rutledge moved for a directed verdict, it did not specify the sufficiency of evidence as a ground, which is necessary for J.N.O.V. review. Despite this, the denial of a new trial was upheld because the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, which demonstrated that Talladega Foundry accurately credited Rutledge for all returned items. Testimony indicated that all returns were credited, confirming Rutledge’s account balance. The trial court's decisions to deny the motions for J.N.O.V. and new trial were affirmed. Additionally, Rutledge's objection regarding the admission of a "quotation form" limiting liability was not reviewable due to the absence of that exhibit in the record. The focus remained on whether the jury's verdict was sufficiently supported by the evidence.