Lincoln Big Three, Inc. v. Thomas
444 So. 2d 171, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 10029 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff fails to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence if its business records do not definitively establish that the specific defendant being sued is responsible for the alleged loss. A party's established course of dealing can supplement or qualify the express terms of a written agreement.
Facts:
- Lincoln Big Three, Inc. (Lincoln) sold welding gases in cylinders that it owned to B.T. Oilfield Services, Inc. (B.T.).
- B.T. paid for the gas and paid a daily rental fee for the use of the cylinders.
- The written contract between the parties required B.T. to return empty cylinders to Lincoln's distribution station at B.T.'s expense.
- In practice, the established course of dealing was for Lincoln's trucks to deliver full cylinders and pick up empty ones from locations designated by B.T., which were often shared docks used by multiple Lincoln customers.
- B.T. notified Lincoln that it was ceasing its fabrication operations and instructed Lincoln to pick up all remaining empty cylinders.
- Lincoln subsequently began invoicing B.T. for the rental and replacement costs of 42 cylinders (later revised to 19 at trial) which it claimed were never returned.
- B.T. repeatedly objected to the invoices, informing Lincoln that it had returned all cylinders and was no longer in possession of any.
Procedural Posture:
- Lincoln Big Three, Inc. filed suit against B.T. Oilfield Services, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court for rental and replacement costs of allegedly unreturned gas cylinders.
- During the proceedings, Lincoln dismissed two individual defendants and proceeded only against the corporation, B.T.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court judge found that Lincoln had failed to prove its case and rendered a judgment dismissing Lincoln's suit.
- Lincoln, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, with B.T. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a plaintiff's business records satisfy the burden of proof to hold a defendant liable for unreturned goods when those records cannot specifically identify which customer is responsible for the loss, and the parties' course of dealing has modified the written contract's terms for return?
Opinions:
Majority - Crain, Judge
No. A plaintiff's business records are insufficient to prove a defendant's liability when those records fail to establish an essential element of the claim, such as the identity of the party responsible for the loss. First, the court held that B.T. did not breach the written terms of the contract. Although the contract required B.T. to return the cylinders to Lincoln's station, the long-standing course of dealing between the parties modified this term. The actual practice was for Lincoln to pick up the cylinders from designated locations, and this course of dealing qualifies the written terms under Louisiana law. Therefore, B.T. fulfilled its obligation by making the cylinders available for pickup as was customary. Second, the court found that Lincoln failed to meet its burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Lincoln's evidence of the missing cylinders consisted of business records and the testimony of its credit manager. However, the manager admitted that Lincoln's cylinder receipt forms, signed at shared docks, did not specify which customer should be credited for the returns. Without testimony from the truck drivers who serviced the docks, Lincoln could not prove that B.T., rather than another customer using the same dock, was responsible for the missing cylinders. Since the identity of the responsible party is an essential element of the claim, Lincoln's evidence was insufficient.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical importance of the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard in civil litigation and demonstrates that a plaintiff's internal business records are not dispositive if they are incomplete. It reinforces that a plaintiff must prove every essential element of its claim, including definitively linking the alleged harm to the specific defendant. Furthermore, the decision highlights the power of a 'course of dealing' under the Uniform Commercial Code to modify the express terms of a written contract, showing that courts will often prioritize the parties' actual conduct over the strict language of their agreement to reflect business realities.
