Philip C. Tobin v. Philip N. Barter
89 A.3d 1088
Me.2014Background
- Tobin hired Barter in December 2009 to produce a book compiling Barter’s artwork, with Tobin writing text and obtaining print-quality images.
- The written agreement provided Tobin would receive 50% of net proceeds from the book and Barter would fund up to $5,000 plus supply necessary photographs.
- Approximately 208 images were selected for potential inclusion after extensive image processing and Barter provided titles and dimensions for those images.
- Tobin drafted the manuscript and sought Barter’s input; Barter did not respond to Tobin’s February 2011 letter seeking resolution of the dispute.
- Tobin filed suit August 15, 2011 alleging contract breach, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel; Barter moved for summary judgment, which the court denied.
- A May 13, 2013 jury found Barter breached the contract and Tobin was awarded $10,000; the following day the court granted Barter’s Rule 50 motion and vacated the verdict; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court later vacated that ruling and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there mutual assent forming a contract between Tobin and Barter? | Tobin | Barter | Yes; there was a meeting of the minds supporting a contract. |
| Did Barter breach a material term of the contract? | Tobin | Barter | Yes; evidence supports material breach by failure to respond/engage. |
| Do the damages and the evidentiary record support Tobin’s $10,000 award? | Tobin | Barter | Yes; damages reasonably supported by the jury’s verdict. |
| Was the trial court correct to grant Barter’s Rule 50(b) motion as a matter of law? | Tobin | Barter | No; a reasonable view of the evidence could sustain Tobin’s verdict. |
| What is the proper remedy on appeal after the erroneous JMOL ruling? | Tobin | Barter | Remand for entry of a judgment reinstating the jury verdict in Tobin’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Porter, 2004 ME 134 (Me. 2004) (mutual assent required for contract formation; trier of fact determines meeting of minds)
- Me. Energy Recovery Co. v. United Steel Structures, Inc., 1999 ME 31 (Me. 1999) (jury questions on breach; review standards for Rule 50(b))
- Agway, Inc. v. Ernst, 394 A.2d 774 (Me. 1978) (existence of contract is a question for the trier of fact)
- Associated Builders, Inc. v. Coggins, 1999 ME 12 (Me. 1999) (factors for material breach; substantial performance considerations)
- Down E. Energy Corp. v. RMR, Inc., 1997 ME 148 (Me. 1997) (damages may be based on judgmental approximation where appropriate)