123 So. 3d 780
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Crescent Coatings hired to apply paints/coatings; Quality Paint extended credit to Crescent via line of credit; March 16, 2010 order allegedly delivered but Crescent did not receive it; Crescent later placed a larger order with manufacturer on March 22, 2010 and received it; delivery for March 16, 2010 was to Crescent Coatings’ Gibson location, with Max Welders as a landmark; delivery ticket for March 16, 2010 was signed by Max Welders’ employee, not Crescent, and Crescent had no signature on the march 16 ticket; trial court credited Crescent’s witnesses over Quality Paint’s driver on delivery; trial judge awarded Crescent and Orgeron judgment; Quality Paint appealed; issues include whether Max Welders was Crescent’s agent, whether delivery to Max Welders complied with contract, and whether the trial court’s factual findings were manifestly erroneous; written judgment did not explicitly address Max Welders; appellate jurisdiction hinged on a signed written judgment as required by law; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Crescent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency/putative mandatary preservation | Quality argues Max Welders was Crescent’s agent for delivery | Quality failed to raise putative mandatary in court | Not preserved; issue not considered |
| Risk of loss under contract delivery terms | Delivery to Max Welders complied with contract; risk passed to Crescent | Delivery was to Max Welders; Crescent location differs; risk remained with Quality | Delivery to Crescent’s Gibson location required; risk remained with Quality; assignment lacks merit |
| Factual credibility and manifest error | Driver’s testimony inconsistent with Max Welders’ employee | Credibility weighs with trial court; two permissible views exist | No manifest error; trial court’s credibility determination supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (factfinder credibility reviewed deferentially; manifest error standard applied to credibility findings)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1989) (two-part test for reviewing findings of fact; not clearly wrong if reasonable in light of record)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987) (clarifies manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (dual standard for appellate review of fact-finding; defer to trial court when reasonable)
- Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106 (La.1990) (affirmative duty to review credibility determinations under manifest error)
- Beaudoin, 939 So.2d 428 (La.App.5th Cir.2006) (jurisdictional appeal principles when final judgment not signed)
- Lenard v. Goodwin, 554 So.2d 294 (La.App.5th Cir.1989) (procedural requirements for appeal; signed final judgment required)