Highland Tank v. Industrial Labor et al (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S37034-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HIGHLAND TANK AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, : : : Appellant : : v. : : INDUSTRIAL LABOR & EQUIPMENT : SERVICES, LLC, a LA Limited Liability : Company; TRI STATE TRUCKING CO., a : PA Corporation; AND ROYAL OILFIELD : SERVICES, LLC, a PA Limited Liability : Company, : : Appellees : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2058 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment entered on November 15, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County, Civil Division, No. 293 CV 2012 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2014 In this contract dispute, Highland Tank and Manufacturing Company against it and 1 Motion to Quash Hi affirm the Judgment. 1 Tri State is not a party to this appeal. J-S37034-14 The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history recitation herein by reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/13, at 1-10.2 Following the conclusion of a non-jury trial, the trial court filed an entry of judgment against Highland.3 Highland timely filed a Notice of Appeal. Highland presents the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion when it ruled that the signed [P]urchase [O]rder from [ILES] to [Highland] was not proof of a valid contract between the parties? 2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion when it ruled that delivery of certain tanks was never made [] pursuant to the delivery instructions on the signed Purchase Order[,] when the former [Chief Ex testified that delivery was[,] in fact[,] made in accordance with the signed Purchase Order? 3. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion when it ruled [that] ILES was not liable to Highland [] because certain invoices attached to the not apply the same line of reasoning to hold Royal liable to Highland []? 2 For the purpose of this appeal, the purchase order dated October 4, 2011 Accordingly, we have appended a copy of the Purchase Order to the trial 3 Upon Praecipe by Highland, the prothonotary entered Judgment in favor of Defendants on November 15, 2013. -2- J-S37034-14 Brief for Appellant at 5. Initially, we must addres 4 based upon its filing of a substantially defective appellate brief and reproduced record. Specifically, ILES objects to these documents because, inter alia (1) 5 (2) Highland failed to include in its reproduced record several documents, including portions of the Notes of all of which Highla contains only four citations to the reproduced record; and (4) Highland failed to indicate in its brief that the trial court did not order the filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. See Motion to Quash, 2/24/14, at 4-5. We conclude that these defects are not so substantial as to warrant quashal of the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 4 all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or 5 Pag Argument section abruptly terminates on page 16, and the next page, page -3- J-S37034-14 6 Accordingly, we proceed to a Our standard of review is as follows: Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if its findings are premised appeal, where they are based upon the credibility of the witnesses, unless it appears that the court abused its discretion ors of law, we de novo. McEwing v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations, quotation marks and paragraph breaks omitted). Initially, Highland concedes that the sole cause of action pled in its Complaint was for breach of contract based upon an alleged oral contract. Order attached to the [C]omplaint is clearly a written instrument, and that written instrument should be the prevailing document used to determine if a 6 The Motion to Quash requests, in the alternative, that this Court order Highland to file a complete appellate brief and reproduced record that complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and grant ILES an enlargement of time to file its responsive brief. See Motion to Quash, 2/24/14, at 6-8. We likewise deny this request and will consider the briefs that are presently before us. -4- J-S37034-14 Id. at 11.7 Highland points out that the Purchase Order (1) was signed by Jack Mauer, the CEO of ILES at the relevant time; (2) named ILES as the customer/buyer; (3) named be purchased (60)8 and the price of those tanks. Id. at 9-10. Moreover, according to Highland, the signed Purchase Order constitutes sufficient written evidence of the alleged contract between it and ILES to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Id. at 11; see also 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2201(a). existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty im McCausland v. Wagner, 78 A.3d 1093, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). An essential element to any contract is the identity of the parties thereto. Ludwinska v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 178 A. 28, 30 (Pa. 1935). In support of its determination that no enforceable contract existed between Highland and any of the Defendants, the trial court stated that [Highland] cannot prove the identity of its counterpart in the [alleged] transaction at issue; specifically, [Highland] cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence the person/entity to whom it intended to sell its tanks, or by whom the tanks were to 7 Highland does not advance any claim against Royal. 8 Complaint sought payment for the remaining 44 tanks. 4/2/12, at ¶ 11; see also N.T., 4/23/13, at 21, 59. -5- See Complaint, J-S37034-14 be purchased. No enforceable agreement, oral or otherwise, was reached between Highland and any [D]efendant to purchase the tanks. *** This matter can best be described as a bad business deal. The parties were attempting to manufacture, sell, buy and lease of tanks without the benefit of a written contract. Instead, the parties chose to engage in a costly transaction based upon nebulous activities. The bottom line is that [Highland] believes that someone owes it money[,] but it does not know who or what entity is responsible for the debt. Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/13, at 10, 12 (paragraph breaks and numbering Even assuming, arguendo, that the Purchase Order constituted an enforce contract claim would fail, since there is no evidence of record that Highland tendered delivery of any tanks to ILES.9 In its Opinion, the trial court found that (1) Tri State had picked up the id. id. es not know if id. Id. Based upon 9 See Brief for Appellant at 14-16. -6- J-S37034-14 these finding obligations under the alleged contract with ILES because it failed to deliver the tanks to ILES or make arrangements to ensure their delivery to ILES. Therefore, no payment is due to [Hig Id. at 12. Our review evidence of record, and we agree with its conclusion. Finally, we will n no argument pertaining to this issue. See Commonwealth v. Renchenski, 988 A.2d 699, 703 (Pa. Super. 2010) (finding waiver where the appellant did not present any argument, citation, or legal authority in support of an issue on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Based upon the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of entry of Judgment against Highland and dismissal of Judgment. Motion to Quash denied; Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/7/2014 -7-

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.