Akers v. Bernhard Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
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
- Bowden v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
- Standard Roofing Co. v. ELLIOT CONST. CO.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Colbert v. BF Carvin Const. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1992
- SK Whitty & Co. v. LL LAMBERTLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1991
- Harris Builders, L.L.C. v. URS Corp.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2012