In a Memorandum Opinion and Order that quotes Neil Sedaka and Taylor Swift in its footnotes, the District Court in House of Brides, Inc. v. Angelo, 2016 WL 698093 (N.D.Ill. 2016), examines the quantity and quality of evidence required to win a summary judgment motion.
The plaintiff sold wedding clothes on-line and in retail stores and the defendant was the plaintiff’s main supplier. The plaintiff sued the dress maker in state court for breach of contract claiming many of the dresses were defective or shipped later than promised.
After it removed the case to Federal court, the defendant counter-sued the plaintiff for unpaid invoices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on its counterclaims as well as on plaintiff’s claims.
Partly siding with the defendant, the court discussed some common Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) claims and defenses and the required elements of a summary judgment affidavit.
The UCC governs contracts for the sale of goods and wedding dresses constitute goods under the UCC. A seller who delivers accepted goods to a buyer can sue the buyer for the price of the goods accepted along with incidental damages where a buyer fails to pay for the goods. 810 ILCS 5/2-709.
In a goods contract, written contract terms can be explained or supplemented by a “course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade.” However, written terms cannot be contradicted by evidence of a prior agreement or an oral agreement made at the same time as the written one by the parties.
Here, the plaintiff argued that the course of dealing showed that defendant routinely accepted late payments and so defendant’s “net 30” invoice language was excused.
The court rejected this argument. It held that avoiding the 30-day payment deadline was a material change that would have to be in writing since the Statute of Frauds governs contracts for the sale of goods exceeding $500 and the dresses involved in this suit easily eclipsed that value.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s set-off defense against the defendant’s breach of contract counterclaim since a set-off must relate to the same contract being sued on (the court’s example: a seafood buyer can’t set off the price of frogs’ legs because the seller previously sent bad fish in a previous order)
Next, the court struck the plaintiff’s affidavit in support of its breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim on the basis of hearsay.
In Federal court, an affidavit in support of or opposing summary judgment must be based on personal knowledge, show the witness’s competence and constitute admissible evidence. Conclusory statements or affidavit testimony based on hearsay is inadmissible on summary judgment.
The plaintiff’s affidavit testimony that there were dress defects that required refunds was too vague to survive defendant’s summary judgment motion. This was because no employee stated that he/she personally issued any refunds or had first-hand knowledge of any dress defects that warranted a refund.
What’s more, the seller failed to offer any authenticated business records that showed either the claimed dress defects or the refund amounts. Without admissible evidence, the plaintiff seller failed to challenge the defendant’s breach of contract claim and the court awarded summary judgment to the defendant.
Afterwords:
1/ This case shows importance of furnishing admissible evidence when challenging summary judgment;
2/ Hearsay evidence in a summary judgment affidavit will be rejected;
3/ Course of performance or course of dealing can augment or explain written contract terms but cannot contradict them;
4/ A set-off defense must pertain to contract being sued on instead of a separate agreement;