Henson v. Reddin

358 S.W.3d 428 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D decided that he wanted to sell his one-half interest in a company. It owned a polyurethane machine used to spray truck bed liners or any kind of insulation. The polyurethane machine was permanently mounted inside an enclosed gooseneck trailer that had 'Discount Industrial Coating, Incorporated' emblazoned on it. The machine had sat idle and had become clogged and was not working. A Joseph Brophy owned the other one-half interest in the company. P let D know that he was interested in purchasing the machine if he could get it in working order. P purchased parts and began working on the machine. After P had purchased parts and had added them to the machine, D moved the trailer and did not return any parts to P and did not disclose the location of the machine. According to P, on the same day that he added the parts he talked to D about the price and D asked $10,000 and P offered $5,000. D indicated he 'was going to think about it.' During this conversation, P told d that the parts were on the trailer. By Monday, the trailer was gone. P testified that he called several times to get the parts but D ignored the calls. When he did reach D, P was told by D that 'he wasn't bringing nothing back.' After four to six weeks had passed, P saw the trailer in Newark and called Brophy. They went and retrieved the trailer, but police stopped them and told them to take it back. They returned the trailer to the place where they had found it. P testified that the plan in retrieving the trailer was for him to remove parts and for Brophy to keep the trailer and work out the issue with D. P sued D for conversion. P got the verdict and D appealed.