Marcantel v. Jefferson Door Co., Inc.
2002 WL 535076, 817 So. 2d 236 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for sale is not perfected unless there is a meeting of the minds between the parties as to the essential nature of the 'thing' being sold. A mutual misunderstanding regarding a core characteristic of the goods vitiates the consent required to form a valid contract.
Facts:
- Thomas and Elaine Marcantel visited Jefferson Door Company, Inc. to purchase kitchen cabinets for a home renovation.
- The Marcantels explicitly informed the salesperson, Mary Jane Ziefel, that they wanted cabinets of all-wood construction.
- After being shown expensive, custom all-wood cabinets that did not fit their budget or timeline, the Marcantels selected manufactured cabinets from a showroom display.
- The Marcantels believed they were ordering an upgraded, all-wood version of the display cabinets, a belief reinforced when the salesperson showed them a solid wood drawer from the display.
- The Marcantels paid a $2,900.00 deposit toward the total price of $5,955.93, and the sales documents did not specify the construction materials, listing only manufacturer part numbers.
- Upon delivery, the Marcantels discovered that the interior of the cabinets was constructed of laminated particle board, not wood.
- The Marcantels immediately stopped payment on the final check and attempted to resolve the dispute with Jefferson Door, but the parties could not reach an agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and Elaine Marcantel (plaintiffs) filed suit against Jefferson Door Company, Inc. (defendant) in a trial court for breach of contract.
- Jefferson Door filed an answer and a reconventional demand (counterclaim) against the Marcantels for the unpaid balance on the cabinets.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Marcantels, ordering Jefferson Door to refund their deposit.
- The trial court also dismissed Jefferson Door's reconventional demand.
- Jefferson Door (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, with the Marcantels as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a valid contract of sale exist when there is a mutual misunderstanding between the buyer and seller regarding a key characteristic of the item being sold, such as its material composition?
Opinions:
Majority - Gothard, Judge
No, a valid contract of sale does not exist under these circumstances. For a contract of sale to be perfected, there must be a meeting of the minds on the thing, the price, and the consent of the parties. Here, the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Marcantels believed they were purchasing all-wood cabinets, while Jefferson Door intended to sell cabinets with particle board interiors. Because there was no mutual consent as to the 'thing' being sold—a fundamental aspect of the agreement—no contract was formed. The court of appeal gives great deference to the trial court's findings of fact and credibility assessments under the 'manifest error' standard. Although the trial judge made a minor factual misstatement, the ultimate conclusion that there was no meeting of the minds was not clearly wrong. As no contract was formed, ownership of the cabinets never transferred to the Marcantels, so they must return the cabinets to Jefferson Door while receiving their deposit back.
Analysis:
This case serves as a clear illustration of the fundamental contract principle of mutual consent, or 'meeting of the minds.' It underscores that a party's reasonable, subjective belief about an essential term of an agreement—such as the material composition of a product—can prevent contract formation if that belief is not shared by the other party. The ruling also reinforces the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial courts' factual findings, especially when they are based on conflicting testimony and witness credibility. For future transactions, this decision highlights the critical importance of ensuring that all essential terms are explicitly and unambiguously stated in the written agreement to avoid disputes arising from mutual misunderstanding.
