 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Waller12/26/1996
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Defendants-appellants Michael Waller, Cleveland Telecommunications Corporation, and CTC Technologies, Incorporated appeal the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee David Williams. The jury awarded Williams damages for breach of contract claims, conversion, and defamation.
Appellants assign the following errors for review:
I. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS WERE DENIED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WHEN THE TRIAL COURT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO SERVE AS THE TRIER OF FACT IN THE DETERMINATION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
II. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE FINDINGS OF THE JURY.
III. THE JURY VERDICT AND RESULTING JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
IV. THE JURY VERDICT AND RESULTING JUDGMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW.
V. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT GAVE ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
VI. THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL RESULTING IN THE DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS BEING DENIED A FAIR TRIAL.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT OVERRULED DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICT.
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I.
On August 27, 1993, David J. Williams filed a complaint against Michael Waller, Cleveland Telecommunications Corporation, CTC Technologies, Inc. and M & R Mechanical Contractors, Inc. The complaint was for two counts of breach of contract, for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, unjust enrichment, two counts of conversion, and defamation. M & R Mechanical Contractors later was dismissed with prejudice by Williams. The remaining defendants counterclaimed for two breach of contract claims.
The dispute arose from a soured business relationship between Williams and Waller. In 1990, Williams approached Waller about entering into a business relationship in order to pursue government contracts with an 8(a) firm. The 8(a) program is a derivative of the 8(a) section of the Small Business Act which directs that a percentage of government contracts be awarded to minority or woman- owned companies. A company must undergo a certification process which prequalifies the company as a minority business. Only companies which are certified may participate in these set-aside contracts.
Waller was the president and sole stockholder of an 8(a) company, Cleveland Telecommunications Corporation. Williams expressed an interest in part ownership with Waller in the business entity. On the advice of Waller's attorney, Williams and Waller formed a new company, CTC Technologies, Inc. in October of 1990. Both received two hundred fifty shares of stock. It was agreed that any 8(a) contracts procured by Williams would be administered by Cleveland Telecommunications as it had the requisite certification. Williams was to receive a salary of $60,000 annually if two conditions were met. Williams had to be elected as vice- president of CTC Technologies and CTC Technologies had to accept a contract which would produce a net income of at least a ten per cent profit after paying Williams his salary. Williams agreed to pledge his assets to contribute to the operating capital of CTC Technologies or to the establishment of a line of credit for the company. Both men were to share equally the profits and liabilities of CTC Technologies. Williams was to receive half of the profits of any co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|