LIGHTING LITHO V. DANKA INDUSTRIES 776 N.E.2d 1238 (2002) CASE BRIEF

LIGHTING LITHO V. DANKA INDUSTRIES

776 N.E.2d 1238 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Lightning (P), printing company, sued Danka (D), equipment supplier, alleging fraud in the inducement to enter into a copier lease, and seeking contract and tort damages. The matter proceeded to trial. At the close of P's case the court entered judgment for D on the evidence on P's fraudulent inducement claim. P appealed.

FACTS: D (the salesman for D was named Linn) approached P on numerous occasions about leasing a high-volume copier, which produces 500,000 to 1,000,000 copies per month. P only had a need for 5000 to 20,000 copies per month and already had an adequate copier for that volume, P continually turned down D's offer. In the fall of 1996, D approached P again and told him that he had an account for him that would warrant leasing a high-volume copier. P asked who the account was, and D responded that he would not tell him until the lease was signed. D told P that the account would generate six million copies and $50,000 in profit a year. P expressed doubt but D responded, 'No, it's a done deal. The account is in my back pocket, it goes with the machine.' D returned to P with a manager for D. P wanted everything put in writing but the manager said corporate won't allow it but the account goes with the machine. Convinced that the account accompanied the copier, P signed a lease with American Business Credit Corporation for a Kodak 3100 copier on November 14, 1996. The terms of the lease were $755 per month for sixty months. P also signed an Equipment Maintenance and Supply Annual Agreement with D. American Business Credit Corporation assigned its interest in the lease to Newcourt Leasing Corporation. After the copier was delivered to P, D told P that the account was Commercial Driver's Institute (CDI). When P and D visited CDI, it quickly became apparent that there was no account. D was never able to secure a replacement account for P. P continued to make lease payments on the copier for nearly two years before finally defaulting. P filed a complaint against D. P alleged fraud in the inducement and requested 'rescission of the Contract Documents and a return of the parties to the status quo ante.' D filed a Motion to Strike Jury Demand asserting that P was not entitled to a jury trial because rescission is an equitable remedy that must be tried to the court. The trial court granted the motion. In its Second Amended Complaint, P abandoned its request for rescission of the contract and instead requested 'an award of contract and tort damages' in order to obtain a jury trial. At the close of P's case-in-chief, D moved for judgment on the evidence on P's fraudulent inducement claim. D alleged that P had failed to present any evidence to support its request for damages. The trial court granted the motion. This appeal ensued.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner