United States Welding, Inc. v. B & C Steel, Inc.

261 P.3d 513, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1119, 2011 WL 2650287
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 7, 2011
Docket10CA0879
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 P.3d 513 (United States Welding, Inc. v. B & C Steel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States Welding, Inc. v. B & C Steel, Inc., 261 P.3d 513, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1119, 2011 WL 2650287 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge ROY.

In this breach of contract case, plaintiff, United States Welding, Inc. (seller), appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants, B & C Steel, Inc. and Metro Steel Fabricating, Inc. (purchasers), and Buckeye Welding Supply Company, Inc. (competitor). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Seller is a supplier of gases used in welding. It has seventeen outlets or facilities in six states, the most notable for our purposes being a store in Denver and an acetylene manufacturing facility in Salt Lake City, Utah.

In 2001, seller and purchasers entered into a requirements contract for the purchase and sale of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and acetylene. On appeal, the parties do not dispute either the nature of the contract or its breach by purchasers. Instead, the dispute centers on seller's calculation of gross profits from the sale of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and acetylene.

At trial, purchasers and competitor objected to the evidence of seller's calculation of damages because it lacked an adequate foundation and was based on a summary of doeu-ments not in evidence under CRE 1006. The trial court sustained the objection, and at the conclusion of seller's case, granted purchasers' motion to dismiss.

I. Lost Profits

Seller first contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its claims at the close of its evidence on the ground that it had not presented sufficient evidence of its lost profits. We agree in part and disagree in part.

A. Standard of Review

We review the sufficiency of the evidence under a de novo standard. E-470 Public Highway Authority v. 455 Co., 3 P.3d 18, 22 (Colo.2000). On an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to dismiss at the end of a plaintiff's case, we must consider all relevant facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Goodfellow v. Kattnig, 533 P.2d 58, 59 (Colo.App.1975) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)).

B. Net Profit-Gross Profit

Under Colorado law, damages for lost profits means the loss of net, not gross, profits. Lee v. Durango Music, 144 Colo. 270, 355 P.2d 1083 (1960); Graphic Directions, Inc. v. Bush, 862 P.2d 1020, 1024 (Colo.App.1993).

When operating expenses (overhead) are fixed, however, gross profits may be awarded as representing net profits. Combined Communications Corp. v. Bedford Motors, Inc., 702 P.2d 281, 282 (Colo.App.1985); P & M Vending Co. v. Half Shell of Boston, Inc., 41 Colo.App. 78, 80-81, 579 P.2d 93, 96 (1978); see also Carriage Bags, Ltd. v. Aero *515 linas Argentinas, 521 F.Supp. 1363, 1367 (D.Colo.1981) (applying Colorado law).

In P & M Vending, the division observed:

At trial, plaintiff established that it is a relatively large company with about fifty employees and approximately two thousand [cigarette] vending machine locations in the Denver area, some of which are in the immediate vicinity of the defendants' restaurant; that plaintiff's operating and overhead expenses are fixed costs that would not diminish as a result of the loss of one location such as the defendants'; and that there would be no difference or only a minimal difference between plaintiff's revenues from the vending machine and the plaintiff's net profits. Plaintiff further established that it had more vending machines than locations, and that profits were dependent on the number of locations rather than the number of machines. This evidence formed the basis of the findings and award entered by the trial court.
Where operating expenses are fixed, gross profits may be awarded as representing met profits, Distillers Distributing Corp. v. J.C. Millet[t] Co., 310 F.2d 162 (9th Cir.1962). Hence, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court was correct in concluding that the liquidated damages contemplated by the written agreement were not disproportionate to plaintiff's actual damages and that the liquidated damages provision was valid and enforceable.

41 Colo.App. at 80-81, 579 P.2d at 95 (emphasis added).

Seller tried its case in reliance on Carriage Bags, 521 F.Supp. at 1367. In Carriage Bags, the court, without reference to P & M Vending, stated that damages should place the injured party in the same position it would have enjoyed had the contract not been breached, and that if overhead remained unchanged, then lost gross profits would be the proper measure of damages. Id.

We conclude that seller's lost gross profits from the sale of carbon dioxide and oxygen as a retailer may be awarded as net profits under the holding in P & M Vending. However, with respect to acetylene, this case turns on whether there is sufficient evidence of gross profits.

C. Definitions

No Colorado authority defines and applies the terms "gross profit" and "net profit." These terms are rooted in accounting, and undoubtedly accountants, economist, or other professionals frequently testify as expert witnesses on these issues. 1 However, no accountant testified here, and purchasers and competitor, as they did in the trial court, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, in order to resolve the matter before us and provide guidance to the practicing bar, we address and apply these terms.

In defining these terms, we rely on Jae K. Shim and Joel G. Siegel, Dictionary of Accounting Terms (5th ed. 2010) (Dictionary); a glossary in David R. Herwitz and Matthew J. Barrett, Accounting for Lawyers (Ath ed. 2006) (Textbook); and Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (Black's ).

"Gross profit" has been legally defined as "Itlotal sales revenue less the cost of the goods sold [with] no adjustment being made for additional expenses and taxes." Black's at 1829. The accounting definitions are similar. Dictionary at 222 ("sales minus cost of sales; also called gross margin"); Textbook at 1118 ("difference between net sales and cost of goods sold").

The synonymous terms "net profit" and "net income" are accounting terms defined as "revenue less all expenses." Dictionary at 312. The Textbook definition is: "[The difference between an enterprise's revenues and its cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes during a particular income period." Textbook at 1122.

The synonymous terms "cost of sales" and "cost of goods sold" have been defined as follows:

*516 [The] price of buying or making an item that is sold; also called cost of goods sold.

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

Related

Peo v. Pettigrew
Colorado Court of Appeals, 2025
Just in Case Business Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray
2013 COA 112M (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 P.3d 513, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1119, 2011 WL 2650287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-welding-inc-v-b-c-steel-inc-coloctapp-2011.