Shelly Materials, Inc. v. Great Lakes Crushing, Ltd.
2013 Ohio 5654
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Shelly Materials (parent of Medina Supply) sued Great Lakes Crushing for $39,657.81 for ready-mix concrete allegedly delivered to a Kent State University sidewalk project, plus interest and attorney fees, after Great Lakes refused payment.
- Medina Supply uses delivery tickets (two-location boxes, mix spec) and a GPS system; drivers must obtain and return signed tickets for billing; 50 tickets were introduced but many signatures were blank or illegible.
- At a one-day bench trial Shelly introduced 3 of 18 drivers, a plant dispatcher, company controller, and Kent State construction manager Todd Shaffer, who testified Medina Supply was the supplier and testing reports identified Medina Supply.
- Great Lakes’ managing partner Belich disputed deliveries (denied pump use, lacked project paperwork, said another supplier was approved) and argued there was no written purchase order or agreed price; Great Lakes had an account agreement with Medina Supply providing 18% finance charges and attorney fees for unpaid invoices.
- The trial court found Medina Supply supplied all the concrete, awarded $39,657.81, applied contractual 18% prejudgment interest and attorney fees, and entered judgment of $77,793.34 but ordered post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.
- On appeal, the court affirmed liability and fee award but held the trial court erred by not applying the contract’s 18% rate to post-judgment interest; remanded for an amended judgment with 18% post-judgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shelly/Medina) | Defendant's Argument (Great Lakes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medina Supply supplied the concrete (evidentiary sufficiency/manifest weight) | Tickets, 3 drivers, Shaffer testimony, and testing reports show Medina supplied all concrete | Tickets lack legible signatures; only 3 drivers testified; Belich disputed pump and presence of Medina trucks | Court: Finding not against manifest weight; evidence (tickets, testimony, reports) sufficient to support delivery finding |
| Whether a contract/account existed for the Summit St. job (formation under UCC) | Account agreement + conduct (deliveries and acceptance) show a contract for sale of goods under R.C. 1302.07 | No written purchase order, no meeting of minds, no agreed price | Court: UCC allows contract by conduct; acceptance/use of concrete and account agreement established contract |
| Whether price indefiniteness defeats recovery (open price under UCC) | Controller testified reasonable rate and quantity; UCC supplies reasonable price if none agreed | No evidence of agreed price for the job | Court: Under R.C. 1302.18 reasonable price may be used; award $39,657.81 upheld |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and rate of post-judgment interest | Account agreement allows 18% finance charges and attorney fees; contractual rate should apply to post-judgment interest under R.C. 1343.03(A) | Trial court applied contractual 18% prejudgment but statutory post-judgment rate; argued statutory rate governs judgment | Court: Attorney fees award upheld; trial court erred by using statutory rate post-judgment — contractual 18% applies to post-judgment interest; remanded for amended judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (definition of manifest miscarriage of justice/weight of evidence standard)
- Tewarson v. Simon, 141 Ohio App.3d 103 (9th Dist. 2001) (appellate review standard quoted regarding manifest weight)
- Tubelite Co., Inc. v. The Original Sign Studio, Inc., 176 Ohio App.3d 241 (10th Dist. 2008) (UCC governs sales of goods and contract formation by conduct)