2020 Ohio 3449
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- FedEx sued Brandes for $10,303.13 for duties/taxes FedEx advanced to Venezuelan customs for two April 2015 shipments, alleging Brandes contracted under FedEx’s international Terms and Conditions making the shipper ultimately responsible.\
- Brandes disputed liability, asserting the shipments were DDU (Delivered Duty Unpaid), the Venezuelan consignee (I.V.R.O.C.A.) was responsible and in fact paid the duties, and that FedEx misapplied exchange/conversion rates.\
- FedEx supported its summary-judgment motion with invoices, breakdown worksheets, correspondence, FedEx’s Terms and Conditions, airwaybills, and an affidavit from FedEx manager Joseph Singler attesting to the account status and authenticating exhibits.\
- Brandes produced affidavits from its president and I.V.R.O.C.A.’s VP asserting DDU terms and a 2015 payment by I.V.R.O.C.A. (Bs. 13,467.23) and challenged FedEx’s conversion calculations.\
- The municipal court granted FedEx partial summary judgment (entering judgment for $10,303.13) and denied Brandes’ summary-judgment and motion to strike; Brandes appealed.\
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim (genuine issues of fact remain about whether the consignee paid and about FedEx’s exchange-calculation/damages) but upheld the court’s denial of Brandes’ motions and the ruling on authentication and counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FedEx) | Defendant's Argument (Brandes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — liability to reimburse duties advanced | Contract/terms make shipper ultimately responsible; FedEx performed and advanced duties; Brandes owes reimbursement | Terms were DDU; consignee was responsible and paid; Brandes did not breach | Reversed grant of SJ on breach — genuine factual disputes about whether consignee paid and thus whether Brandes breached |
| Damages calculation / exchange-rate conversion | Invoices and breakdowns show Bs. amounts converted to USD totaling $10,303.13 | Invoices use inconsistent conversion rates; FedEx may have miscomputed reconversion to USD; claimed duty far exceeds reasonable duty on $2,300 value | Genuine issue of material fact on damages and which exchange rate applies; cannot decide on SJ |
| Authentication / motion to strike exhibits | Exhibits were incorporated and authenticated by Singler affidavit under Civ.R.56(E) | Exhibits unauthenticated hearsay and should be struck | Trial court did not abuse discretion; affidavit sufficiently authenticated business records; denial of motion to strike affirmed |
| Brandes’ motion for SJ and counterclaims (frivolous conduct/fraud) | FedEx argued counterclaims meritless; SJ on FedEx’s claims moots unjust-enrichment claims | Brandes sought SJ on its counterclaims and defenses | Trial court did not err denying Brandes’ SJ; appellate court found counterclaims lacked supporting proof and were moot once breach claim resolved (affirmed denial of Brandes’ SJ) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (trial court may not weigh credibility on summary judgment; evidence construed in favor of nonmovant)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party bears initial burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (1995) (elements and standard for granting summary judgment under Civ.R.56)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002) (contract formation requires meeting of the minds on essential terms)
- Telecom Acquisition Corp. I v. Lucic Enters., 62 N.E.3d 1034 (8th Dist. 2016) (court may not resolve credibility disputes between competing affidavits on summary judgment)