Sunl Group, Inc. v. Zhejiang Yongkang Top Imp. & Exp. Co.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 832
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Yongkang sued Sunl Group and Ham Trading for a sworn account and unjust enrichment for unpaid goods (ATVs, go-carts, three-wheeled motorcycles, mopeds).
- Bench trial verdict: Sunl liable for $1,828,740 damages and $155,000 in attorney’s fees; Ham took nothing.
- Plaintiff Exhibit A (eleven sales contracts and a commercial invoice) was admitted despite Sunl’s relevancy objection; most contracts list Yongkang as seller and Sunl as buyer.
- Lu testified Yongkang did not manufacture the goods; factories like Kangdi produced them, with Yongkang arranging manufacture and delivery to Sunl or a Sunl receiver such as Ham.
- Lu created Plaintiffs Exhibit B (shipment chart) showing deliveries and balances; Sunl allegedly received all goods.
- May Shan testified Sunl did not import goods directly from Yongkang and that she could not recognize Shan’s (David Shan’s) signatures; Ham acted as a receiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Plaintiffs Exhibit A | Exhibit A contained relevant contracts; portions were admissible. | Exhibit A included an inadmissible first contract listing Kangdi as seller; relevance objections should bar. | Exhibit A admissible; Sunl failed to isolate inadmissible portions; remaining portions relevant. |
| Sufficiency of evidence Yongkang performed | Delivery per Exhibit B and Sunl’s receipt show Yongkang performed. | Evidence insufficient to prove Yongkang delivered goods. | Sufficient evidence, legally and factually, that Yongkang delivered goods per contracts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion framework)
- Speier v. Webster College, 616 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1981) (particularized objections required when exhibit has admissible and inadmissible parts)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harper, 61 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (admissibility of mixed evidence with specific objections required)
- Haddad v. Brown & Root, 142 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1944) (narrowing objection scope for mixed exhibits)
- Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (implied findings in trial without findings of fact addressed when record exists)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing factual sufficiency)
- Suberu v. Kroger Tex. Ltd. P’ship, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (legal sufficiency standards; weight of evidence)
- Rosemond v. Al-Lahiq, 331 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam considerations in reviewing trial judgments)