2011 Ohio 6423
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Canfield High School project involved removal of football-field topsoil for artificial turf, with Acme and R&J trucking companies providing hauling services.
- Saunders & Sons Topsoil arranged and controlled payments; disputed number of trucks and payment obligations arose between Saunders, R&J, and Acme.
- Acme filed suit alleging it provided services to Saunders and purchased R&J's receivable; Saunders denied payment and asserted counterclaims including conversion and unjust enrichment.
- Trial court held there was a valid contract/assignment, awarded Acme $6,249.89 and nominal damages of $1.00 to Saunders for conversion, and denied substantial damages for conversion.
- Court found Saunders failed to prove lost-profits and other damages with reasonable certainty; conversion damages were speculative since the amount and value of soil were not proven.
- Saunders appealed, challenging damages and unjust enrichment rulings; appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nominal damages were proper for conversion | Saunders: lost-profits should be awarded; conversion damages provable. | Acme: damages speculative; only nominal damages warranted. | Nominal damages sustained; lost profits not proven with certainty. |
| Whether Acme adequately pled and proved unjust enrichment | Acme conferred trucking services; Saunders unreasonably retained benefits. | Saunders: no contract; unjust enrichment not proven; receipt of benefits contested. | Unjust enrichment claim properly pled; court affirmed judgment for Acme. |
| Whether Acme could recover R&J's accounts receivable via assignment | Assignment of receivable transfers payment rights to Acme; valid under law. | No relevant contract-based or negotiable instrument issue; assignment improper. | Assignment of rights valid; Acme could recover receivable. |
| Whether the amount of soil converted and its value were proven with reasonable certainty | Saunders calculated volumes and values from tickets and estimates; sought substantial damages. | Damages were speculative; exact amounts not proven; miscalculation risks. | Damages not proven with reasonable certainty; nominal damages appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co., 44 Ohio St.3d 36 (Ohio 1989) (lost profits must be reasonably ascertainable; speculative evidence insufficient)
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1984) (unjust enrichment elements: benefit conferred, knowledge, unjust retention)
- Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Youngstown, 151 Ohio App.3d 16 (Ohio App.2002) (measure of damages for conversion: value at time of conversion)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (reliability of appellate review for judgments supported by competent evidence)
- Digital & Analog Design Corp. v. N. Supply Co. (Digital & Analog II), 0 (Ohio 1989) (clarified standard for proving lost profits)