Graham Construction Services v. Hammer & Steel Inc., No. 13-1843 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis dispute arose between H&S, the lessor of drilling equipment, and Graham, the lessee, over the lease of drilling equipment for the construction of an underground water shaft. The court reversed the jury's verdict and judgment in favor of Graham and entered judgment in favor of H&S on Graham's claim for negligent misrepresentation as the claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine; the court had no basis to conclude that the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred H&S's breach of contract claim as a matter of law; because the district court refused to submit an estoppel instruction based exclusively on failure to disclose, any error in refusing the instruction could not be predicated on evidence of affirmative representations made by H&S; the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on Graham's proposed mitigation instruction; therefore, the court vacated the jury award in favor of H&S on its breach of contract claim; the court concluded that the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar H&S's recovery of the value of the auger; therefore, the court vacated the district court's award in favor of H&S for loss of the auger and remanded for a new trial on damages as to those claims; and the court noted that on remand, Graham's mitigation defense may reduce all, some, or none of H&S's damages.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. Where plaintiff sought purely economic damages through its negligent misrepresentation claim, Missouri's economic loss doctrine barred plaintiff's recovery on that claim, and the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the claim; plaintiff's jury award is vacated, and the district court is directed to enter judgment for defendant on the claim; plaintiff's failure to raise its argument regarding equitable estoppel in a Rule 50(a) motion meant the issue was waived and would not be considered on appeal; district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiff's request for a jury instruction on its defense of equitable estoppel; the district court did err, however, in failing to instruct the jury on plaintiff's defense of failure to mitigate as the instruction was supported by the evidence and was legally correct; as a result, the jury's award in favor of defendant on its breach of contract claim is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for a new trial limited to the issue of damages; the "clean hands" doctrine did not bar defendant's claim for money damages for a lost auger; however, the amount of the jury verdict on this claim is affected by the mitigation of damages issue, and the jury award is vacated with direction to conduct a new trial on damages on this claim.
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.