Facts

In early 2005, plaintiff DXG Technology U.S.A., entered into an agreement with Robin Zhe He d/b/a DXG Canada to issue his spouse, d/b/a Pitsford Investments, at least $1.5 million in digital camera equipment from DXG Technology so that he could sell the equipment wholesale to several vendors in Canada, including Wal-Mart and Canadian Tire.

Between April and July of 2005, DXG Technology shipped $2,284,800 worth of digital camera equipment to He and his spouse. Under the terms of the receipt of goods, DXG Technology was supposed to be paid the full balance within 60 days of shipment. After DXG Technology did not receive any payment from He, he was sent e-mails to inquire about the status of the payments. He replied by making various complaints about the products he had received.

DXG Technology sued Zhe He and his spouse's company, Pitsford Investments for breach of contract. Judge Jon Tigar ruled that Pitsford Investments, He's paper company, DXG Canada Inc., and Robin He were all the same entity.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff argued that He had distributed the products to his clients and received payments for those products, therefore plaintiff was entitled to the money it was owed. Under the terms of the contract, plaintiff claimed that while He had a right to keep any monies he received above and beyond the products' wholesale price of $2,284,280, he was required to pay the agreed upon amount and had not paid at all.

The plaintiff argued that while a certain credit could be issued for some minor defects in the products, the deficiencies were minor and did not prevent He from selling the majority, if not all of the products to his purchasers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant argued there were defects with the products, claiming some of the equipment did not work and that DXG Technology failed to put instructions in French on the boxes, even though it knew the products were to be distributed in Canada. Also, defendant argued He was not responsible for any financial obligations of his spouse's paper company.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $2.3 million; the defendant offered $600,000.

Damages

The plaintiff sought $2,284,800, the wholesale price of the products, plus interest. The defendant argued the damages should be considerably lower because of the defective products and labeling.

Result

The court found He fully liable for breach of contract and awarded plaintiff a total of $2,618,277, consisting of $2,260,800 in principal, plus $357,477 in interest.