Smith v. Reconditioned Appliances

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. Reconditioned Appliances

530 S.W.3d 613

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketED 105433

StatusPublished

This text of 530 S.W.3d 613 (Smith v. Reconditioned Appliances) 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

Smith v. Reconditioned Appliances, 530 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After a bench trial, Noah Smith appeals the judgment in his favor awarding $500 in damages against Reconditioned Appliances. Appellant contests the trial court erred by: (I) improperly applying the wrong measure of damages; (II) failing to award consequential and incidental damages; (III) failing to find Respondent liable for the damage allegedly caused by Respondent; and (IV) failing to submit his cause to a jury. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After a bench trial, Noah Smith appeals the judgment in his favor awarding $500 in damages against Reconditioned Appliances. Appellant contests the trial court erred by: (I) improperly applying the wrong measure of damages; (II) failing to award consequential and incidental damages; (III) failing to find Respondent liable for the damage allegedly caused by Respondent; and (IV) failing to submit his cause to a jury. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.3d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-reconditioned-appliances-moctapp-2017.