Sonepar Distribution New England, Inc. v. T & T Electrical Contractor's, Inc.
133 Conn. App. 752
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Sonepar sued for payment of goods (Quazite boxes) allegedly delivered to T & T Electrical under a credit agreement.
- Damages claimed: $59,114.67 plus interest; case proceeded to bench trial in 2010.
- Drop-shipped order delivered directly from manufacturer to defendant; defendant paid for it.
- Plaintiff claimed a stock order shipment of 100 boxes was delivered to defendant on August 10, 2006, in two loads; defendant denied receipt.
- At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prove a prima facie case; court granted dismissal but allowed new evidence within 30 days.
- Plaintiff moved to open judgment to offer newly discovered evidence; court denied; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for § 15-8 motion to dismiss | Sonepar contends the court used preponderance of the evidence instead of prima facie standard. | Beaudoin argues proper standard was applied. | Error in applying the preponderance standard; harmless error as trial would weigh evidence. |
| Delivery of stock order shipment proven | Sonepar asserts delivery of 100 boxes via stock shipment was proven by receipts and records. | Beaudoin argues plaintiff failed to prove delivery of the stock shipment. | Plaintiff failed to prove delivery of the stock order shipment; judgment for defendant affirmed. |
| Credibility findings at motion to dismiss | Court improperly relied on credibility to grant dismissal. | Credibility is appropriate at dismissal stage when weighing evidence. | Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact; error was harmless because proof failed anyway. |
| Motion to open judgment and new evidence | Court should reopen for newly discovered evidence to change the outcome. | No sufficient new evidence linking second shipment to defendant. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence offered did not show defendant received the stock shipment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berchtold v. Maggi, 191 Conn. 266 (1983) (trial standard and burdens on civil motions to dismiss)
- Friends of Animals, Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 124 Conn.App. 823 (2010) (harmless error doctrine in procedural rulings)
- Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn.App. 297 (2007) (prima facie burden and appellate standard)
- Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (2004) (appeal on whether plaintiff sustained burden to proceed to fact finder)
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn.App. 686 (2010) (credibility determinations at trial; weight of evidence)
- Wright v. Hutt, 50 Conn.App. 439 (1998) (relevance of evidence to damages and proof)
- LaBow v. LaBow, 69 Conn.App. 760 (2002) (course of action where outcome can be sustained on alternate grounds)
- Marion's Appeal from Probate, 119 Conn. App. 519 (2010) (discretionary standard for open dismissal and prove materiality)
- Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557 (2006) (unjust enrichment considerations and proof required for contract claims)