Razorback Concrete Co. v. Dement Constr. Co. , No. 11-3499 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseRazorback Concrete Company (Razorback) sued Dement Construction Company (Dement) for breach of contract and fraud based on disputes over performance of a concrete supply contract. The district court granted summary judgment to Dement on the fraud claim and partial summary judgment to Dement as to the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim, holding that Razorback was not entitled to recover damages under a lost profits theory. After obtaining a judgment on the contract claim, Razorback appealed the grants of summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Dement on Razorback's fraud claim, as Razorback failed to identify any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dement knew its representation as false at the time it was made; and (2) granting partial summary judgment to Dement on Razorback's claim for lost provides, holding that Razorback failed to supply evidence creating a fact issue regarding whether it was a lost volume seller or whether damages provided or under Ark. Code Ann. 4-2-708(1) were otherwise inadequate.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. Given plaintiff's failure to identify any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant knew its assurance that it would not withhold payments was false when made, the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's fraud claim; plaintiff failed to supply evidence creating a fact issue regarding whether it was a lost volume seller or whether the damages provided under Arkansas law were otherwise inadequate; since such evidence is necessary to show lost profits, the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claim for lost profits under Ark. Code. Ann Sec.4-2-708(2).
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.