Allen v. The Pictsweet Company f/k/a/ United Foods, Inc., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY P.O. Box 746 COURTHOU SE GEORGETO WN, DE 19947 JUDGE November 18, 2004 Dean A. Campbell, Esquire 100 North Bedford Street Post Office Box 359 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: Richard E. Berl, Jr., Esquire Smith O Donnell Procino and Berl, LLP 406 South Bedford Street Post Office Box 588 Georgetown, DE 19947 Allen v. The Pictsweet Company f/k/a/ United Foods, Inc and Smith O Donnell Procino and Berl, LLP. C.A. No. 03C-07-026 ESB Dear Counsel: This is my decision on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed by plaintiffs Howard W. and Marjorie M. Allen ( Plaintiffs ) of my Order dated September 20, 2004, that granted Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment against defendant The Pictsweet Company ( Defendant ). The Plaintiffs Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 1. In the Order dated September 20, 2004, I found that the Defendant breached the contract between the parties not only by failing to pay the second $25,000.00 deposit, as required by the contract, but also by not attempting in good faith to satisfy the contingencies in the contract. 2. The Plaintiffs pursued a breach of contract claim pursuant to a liquidated damages provision in the contract. 3. The Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment was granted with damages set at $25,000.00, plus accrued interest. 4. The $25,000.00, plus accrued interest, represented the liquidated damages as established by the contract. 5. The Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion to Alter of Amend Judgement pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(d), Rule 60(a), and Rule 60(b). 6. The Plaintiffs seek pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as the costs associated with pursuing this action. 7. The initial deposit of $25,000.00 was being held in an interest bearing account, as agreed to by the parties. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment sought an order that declared the initial deposit of $25,000.00 be released to them, together with all accrued interest. This is the relief that I awarded to Plaintiffs and it was consistent with the Plaintiffs chosen theory of damages and requested relief. Therefore, the Plaintiffs Motion for pre-judgment interest is denied because it is inconsistent with the Plaintiffs own theory of damages. 8. Plaintiffs Motion also seeks the costs paid by the Plaintiffs to prosecute this matter and post-judgment interest. 9. The Amended Complaint made reference to and sought costs related to this matter and post-judgment interest. 10. Superior Court Civil Rule 60(a) allows the Court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission. 2 These oversights or omissions may be corrected by the Court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the Court orders. 1 11. I inadvertently omitted awarding costs and post-judgment interest to the Plaintiffs in my Order dated September 20, 2004. Plaintiffs shall be awarded their costs for prosecuting this matter and post-judgment interest at the applicable legal rate. CONCLUSION The Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, E. Scott Bradley ESB:tll cc: Prothonotary s Office 1 Superior Court Civil Rule 60(a). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
