Quinn Brothers, Inc. vs. Stuart Wecker (Massachusetts 1993)

Summary

The court held that the trust presented admissible business records and sufficient expert and other evidence to establish damages arising from Quinn's defective preparation and priming of the steel. Because the trial judge improperly excluded the principal damage evidence and consequently did not decide the warranty defense, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. The new trial must also address whether the trust's additional interest calculation qualifies as a business record and, if not, whether the trust can otherwise prove that those costs were caused by the breach and were reasonable and necessary.

Holding

Admissibility of the trust's invoices and checks. The invoices and checks were admissible business records because the trustee testified that the records were kept in good faith, in the regular course of the trust's business, and contemporaneously with the relevant events; the custodian did not need to have authored the invoices.

Proof of damages caused by the breach. The trust presented sufficient evidence to prove damages, including the reasonable and necessary costs of removing and replacing the cladding, sandblasting and repainting the steel, and carrying the construction site during the delay.

Scope of remand and proof of additional loan-interest costs. The judgment had to be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial rather than a damages-only proceeding because the exclusion of the damages evidence left the warranty issue unresolved. On retrial, the trust must establish that its interest calculation satisfies the business-record requirements or otherwise prove that the interest costs were caused by Quinn's breach and were reasonable and necessary.

Quinn Brothers, Inc. vs. Stuart Wecker

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by