Rainbow Air, Inc. v. Falcon Helicopter, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rainbow Air, Inc. v. Falcon Helicopter, Inc.

340 S.W.3d 668, 2011 WL 1639261

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2011

DocketWD 72234

StatusPublished

This text of 340 S.W.3d 668 (Rainbow Air, Inc. v. Falcon Helicopter, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rainbow Air, Inc. v. Falcon Helicopter, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 668, 2011 WL 1639261 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Falcon Helicopters and its principal Robert Schlotzhauer appeal a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, finding them liable to respondent Rainbow Air for fraud following a seven-day bench trial. In a fifty-page judgment containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found that Falcon and Schlotzhauer misrepresented to Rainbow that a helicopter they sold to Rainbow in June 2002 had no damage history, although Falcon and Schlotzhauer were aware that the helicopter had been assembled from components obtained from two separate helicopters, each of which had been involved in a serious accident, and each of which had been sold to Falcon as salvage. On appeal, Falcon and Schlot-zhauer do not challenge the trial court’s *669 finding that they defrauded Rainbow. Instead, they argue that the trial court’s assessment of Rainbow’s damages, based on the benefit of the bargain standard, was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Falcon Helicopters and its principal Robert Schlotzhauer appeal a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, finding them liable to respondent Rainbow Air for fraud following a seven-day bench trial. In a fifty-page judgment containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court found that Falcon and Schlotzhauer misrepresented to Rainbow that a helicopter they sold to Rainbow in June 2002 had no damage history, although Falcon and Schlotzhauer were aware that the helicopter had been assembled from components obtained from two separate helicopters, each of which had been involved in a serious accident, and each of which had been sold to Falcon as salvage. On appeal, Falcon and Schlot-zhauer do not challenge the trial court’s *669 finding that they defrauded Rainbow. Instead, they argue that the trial court’s assessment of Rainbow’s damages, based on the benefit of the bargain standard, was not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 668, 2011 WL 1639261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbow-air-inc-v-falcon-helicopter-inc-moctapp-2011.