This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Breach of Contract
Fraud
Lost Profits

Quality Naturally! Foods, Inc. v. Reimelt Corporation

Published: Oct. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 18, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 7218136896 –  $2,419,430

Judge

George C. Halversen

Court

American Arbitration Association


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marvin Bartel

Melody Williams Dapp


Defendant

Charles Schoor

Randy Gherchick

Lawrence P. Riff
(Los Angeles County Superior Court)


Experts

Plaintiff

John Carson
(technical)

Robert Sherwin
(technical)

R. Carl Hoseney
(technical)

Defendant

Jerry Johanson
(technical)

Irving Thau
(technical)

Paul Solt
(technical)

Facts

In December 1995, plaintiff Quality Naturally! Foods, Inc. (QNF) contracted with defendant Reimelt Corp. to modify an existing material handling system for the conveying and packaging of dry pre-mixes for the bakery industry. Defendant Reimelt designed and installed the retrofit to plaintiff QNF's existing system. The system installed by defendant caused the separation of ingredients in the dry pre-mix that was conveyed through the system to a bagging line. Defendant offered a modification to its design which required plaintiff to share in the cost of the modification. Plaintiff refused to share in the additional cost and demanded that defendant make its system work properly. When defendant was unable to fix the system, plaintiff terminated defendant's services and completed the modifications itself. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on breach of contract, fraud and negligence theories of recovery. In a cross-complaint, defendant sought the remaining $330,000 owed by plaintiff under its contract with defendant.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff reported there were no offers or demands. The defendant reported that both before and during the arbitration, plaintiff's lowest demand was $3 million. Per defendant, plaintiff received attorney fees of $341,921 and expert fee of $122,380.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $2.8 million in damages for lost profits from lost sales to Japan, the cost of repair and other ancillary costs. The defendant sought $330,000 due and owing under the contract.

Other Information

The award was rendered approximately one year and five months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held on July 7, 1997 before George Halversen of AAA resulting in the reported award.


#79764

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390