Chestnut Ridge Group v. Progressive Plastics
621 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- In Feb 2008 Chestnut Ridge (seller) sold three used aluminum silos at auction (auctioneer Harry Davis & Company). Progressive Plastics (buyer) paid ~$24,070 but the seller later refused delivery, citing removal cost and risk. Chestnut Ridge tendered a refund plus $3,000; Progressive refused.
- Progressive sued; Chestnut Ridge sought a declaratory judgment that auction terms limited damages to return of purchase price. The trial court granted summary judgment to Progressive on that declaratory claim (pretrial), concluding damages were not so limited.
- Progressive counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought consequential damages of $27,000/month for 31 months ($837,000), plus punitive and fees; trial focused on breach-damages issues. Chestnut Ridge conceded breach but disputed damages and mitigation.
- At trial the jury initially awarded zero damages, then after further deliberation returned $27,000 in favor of Progressive. Progressive’s post-trial motion for larger damages or new trial was denied; judgment entered for $27,000.
- Progressive appealed arguing insufficiency/weight of damages evidence, improper expert testimony invoking UCC damages, unfair use/editing of a video deposition, and a misleading verdict slip on mitigation. Chestnut Ridge cross‑appealed on (1) whether Paragraph 9 of the auction terms limited seller’s liability to purchase price, (2) UCC applicability to the silos, and (3) exclusion of a deposition of Brian Gill.
Issues
| Issue | Progressive's Argument | Chestnut Ridge's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of damages award | Jury verdict ($27,000) cannot stand because evidence established $27,000/month for 31 months and no proof substitute silos were available within one month | Jury reasonably could reject Progressive’s owner’s damage testimony; award supported by conflicting evidence and possible compromise verdict | Affirmed: evidence sufficient and verdict not against weight of evidence; appellate deference to jury factfinding (award reasonable) |
| Replacement-silos cost/mitigation | If duty to mitigate found, jury should have awarded cost of replacement silos (Conair quote ~$192,507) plus one month consequential damages | Buying new, expensive silos could be unreasonable mitigation; jury free to conclude Progressive did not prove mitigation or consequential claim amount | Affirmed: trial evidence left mitigation and reasonableness to jury; no entitlement to add replacement cost to award |
| Expert testimony invoking UCC damages formula | Chestnut Ridge’s expert used a UCC-type damages calculation after court ruled UCC inapplicable, causing prejudice and confusion | Expert did not testify she applied UCC; concepts overlap and trial court instructed jury on proper law and credibility | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony; no demonstrated prejudice requiring new trial |
| Use/editing of Litchney video deposition | Chestnut Ridge played portions not previously agreed on and presented piecemeal testimony, prejudicing Progressive’s confrontation rights | Both parties had opportunity to use the deposition; Progressive itself read portions in rebuttal | Affirmed: trial court’s evidentiary rulings were within discretion; no abuse |
| Verdict slip phrasing on mitigation | Slip implied Progressive bore burden and limited mitigation to buying substitute silos; was misleading and required new trial | Verdict slip mirrored parties’ trial arguments; court instructed jury correctly on burden (defendant must prove failure to mitigate) and reasonableness standard | Affirmed: slip not confusing in context of jury instructions; no abuse of discretion |
| Paragraph 9 auction‑term liability limitation (Chestnut Ridge cross-appeal) | Paragraph 9 limits seller’s liability to the purchase price (value accepted at auction) because auctioneer acted as seller’s agent | Paragraph 9 (titled "AUCTIONEER'S LIABILITY") applies only to auctioneer; other paragraphs expressly reference seller/principal | Affirmed: Paragraph 9 limits auctioneer only; does not bar seller’s consequential-damage claims |
| UCC applicability to sale of silos (Chestnut Ridge) | Silos are movable goods; UCC should govern damages measure | Trial court ruled UCC inapplicable; Chestnut Ridge failed to preserve issue by not filing post‑trial motion | Issue waived on appeal for failure to preserve; no review |
| Exclusion of Brian Gill deposition (Chestnut Ridge) | Trial court improperly excluded earlier Gill deposition transcript | Trial court excluded earlier transcript and Chestnut Ridge did not preserve post-trial | Issue waived on appeal for failure to preserve; no review |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrer v. Trustees of Univ. of Pennsylvania, 825 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2003) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment n.o.v.; view record in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Lanning v. West, 803 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard for appellate review of verdict against weight of the evidence)
- Betz v. Erie Ins. Exch., 957 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2008) (deference to jury on damages; appellate court will not upset award absent caprice or improper influence)
- Snizavich v. Rohm & Haas Co., 83 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. 2013) (admissibility of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2002) (erroneous evidentiary ruling must also be prejudicial to warrant new trial)
- Valentine v. Acme Markets, Inc., 687 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Super. 1997) (trial court has broad discretion in admission of deposition testimony)
- Century 21 Heritage Realty, Inc. v. Bair, 563 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial judge’s discretion on special findings and form of verdict/interrogatories)
- Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998) (post-trial motion rule requires filing to preserve issues for appeal)
- Allegheny Inspection Serv., Inc. v. N. Union Twp., 964 A.2d 878 (Pa. 2009) (expressio unius inference — mention of one thing implies exclusion of others)