Lamb v. Crayton, 5:15-cv-00241

In Jan 2013 Lamb and Crayton formed an oral agreement: Lamb wired $56,000 to fund purchase of two EMD diesel engines; proceeds (after repaying Lamb) would be split equally.
When the engines failed to sell as a package, the parties orally agreed to "part out" the engines and sell components, maintaining the same repayment-and-split arrangement.
Crayton sold approximately $61,300 of parts, incurred roughly $11,336 in advertising/labor, and estimates remaining parts worth ~$36,440; none of the proceeds were paid to Lamb and revenue went into Crayton Diesel’s general account.
Lamb sued for breach of contract (or unjust enrichment, alternatively) and fraudulent inducement, seeking $75,680 total; discovery closed and Lamb moved for summary judgment.
The primary factual dispute is timing: Lamb contends he was to be repaid as each part sold (rolling payments); Crayton testifies no timing was agreed and he intended to repay after selling higher-value components.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence/terms of an oral contract	Lamb: a binding oral contract existed requiring rolling repayment as parts were sold	Crayton: contract existed but timing of repayment was not agreed	Court: contract existed but timing is disputed; jury must resolve terms
Breach of contract (timing)	Lamb: failure to make rolling payments is breach	Crayton: no agreed timing, so no breach as a matter of law	Court: genuine dispute of material fact precludes summary judgment for Lamb
Unjust enrichment (alternative)	Lamb: alternatively entitled to restitution if no enforceable contract	Crayton: (implicit) contract governs remedy	Court: unjust enrichment unavailable because an express contract covers the subject matter
Fraudulent inducement	Lamb: Crayton knowingly misrepresented repayment timing to induce investment	Crayton: denies intent/falsity; disputes the alleged representation	Court: fraud claim overlaps with contract claim and is barred by the economic loss doctrine; summary judgment denied on that theory too

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (no credibility determinations on summary judgment)
Frear v. P.T.A. Indus., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 99 (Ky. 2003) (oral contracts binding)
Equitania Ins. Co. v. Slone & Garrett, P.S.C., 191 S.W.3d 552 (Ky. 2006) (contract interpretation is a question of law absent factual dispute)
United Parcel Serv. Co. v. Rickert, 996 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. 1999) (elements of fraud)
Derby City Capital, LLC v. Trinity HR Servs., 949 F. Supp. 2d 712 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (economic loss doctrine bars contract-related fraud claims)
Westlake Vinyls, Inc. v. Goodrich Corp., 518 F. Supp. 2d 955 (W.D. Ky. 2007) (application of economic loss doctrine)