Stop and Shoppe Food Mart, Inc. v. Portland Pump Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-07;-407 STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. .' l '. .' STOP AND SHOPPE FOOD MART INC., I. " ,TP'-"J ("Jtt.- /J 'i';"; (.,,,;,> Plaintiff, ORDER PORTLAND PUMP CO., Defendant. Before the court IS a motion for summary judgment by Portland Pump Company. Summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to consider only the portions of the record referred to and the material facts set forth in the parties' Rule 56(h) statements. E.g., Johnson v. McNeil, 2002 ME 99 <JI 8, 800 A.2d 702, 704. The facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Thus, for purposes of summary judgment, any factual disputes must be resolved against the movant. Nevertheless, when the facts offered by a party in opposition to summary judgment would not, if offered at trial, be sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be granted. Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99 err 8, 694 A.2d 924, 926. The court has reviewed the record and finds that with respect to Count I of the complaint (breach of settlement agreement) plaintiff Stop and Shoppe Food Mart Inc. has demonstrated that there are a number of factual disputes for trial, including (but not limited to) the following: 1) To what extent the Adams & Fogg quotation of April IS, 2005 - accepted by Portland Pump on August 3, 2005 as "descriptive of what they [Portland Pump] are prepared to do in terms of equivalent installation to satisfy the requirements of the plaintiff as part of the settlement" - differed from the original contract and from the settlement agreement reached in 2003. 2) Whether, given a potential ambiguity in the statements made by counsel for Portland Pump on August 3, 2005, the Adams & Fogg quotation potentially imposed additional obligations upon Portland Pump or merely fleshed out its original obligations. 3) Whether the $32,700 received by Portland Pump from Dresser was to be used entirely to implement the settlement. 4) Whether Portland Pump wrongfully overcharged Stop and Shoppe $1,500 for what it characterized as additional installation services. 5) Whether Stop and Shoppe prevented Portland Pump from performing the settlement agreement or whether Portland Pump failed or refused to perform the installation in a satisfactory manner. With respect to Stop and Shoppe's conversion claim (Count II) the court concludes that Stop and Shoppe has not demonstrated that there is a factual dispute as to whether it consented to Portland Pump's possession of certain equipment. See Portland Pump SMF «j[ 9; Stop and Shoppe SMF <[ 9. Stop and Shoppe's real complaint is that the delay in installing the equipment resulted in loss of the warranty period. If proven, this would constitute a basis for relief under Stop and Shoppe's claim for breach of the settlement agreement but does not constitute a claim for conversion. 2 The entry shall be: Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Count I and granted as to Count II. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a). DATED: January /2.. ,2009. Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court 3 )F COURTS land County Box 287 :line 04112-0287 RUSSELL PIERCE ESQ PO BOX 4600 PORTLAND ME 04112 :JF COURTS rland County Box 287 aine 04112-0287 JEFFREY EDWARDS ESQ PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112 I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
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.
