Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Akers v. Bernhard Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 2014No. 48,871-CAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCaraway, J.

_|jl agree with the majority’s ruling finding Bernhard liable for Akers’s contractual claim and the award for Akers’s principal demand. Akers’s ability to return the Ven-taire system and mitigate his loss was a close question of fact. Akers took the position that he delivered the product to *832Bernhard and the “sale was complete.” Therefore, because of Bernhard’s control of the product at that point, Akers was not responsible for either its return to Ven-taire or its resale.

I respectfully dissent to the majority’s ruling in favor of Bernhard on its third party demand against the City. Once the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bowden v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
  2. Standard Roofing Co. v. ELLIOT CONST. CO.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
  3. Colbert v. BF Carvin Const. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. SK Whitty & Co. v. LL LAMBERTLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Harris Builders, L.L.C. v. URS Corp.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API