Peter Vicari General Contractor, Inc. v. St. Pierre
831 So. 2d 296, 2002 WL 31318556 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, an oral contract for a price exceeding $500 can be proven by the testimony of one credible witness and other corroborating circumstances. A defendant's failure to call key witnesses within its control to rebut the plaintiff's testimony can serve as a corroborating circumstance.
Facts:
- In February 1994, Peter Vicari General Contractor, Inc. (Vicari) began rebuilding Grand Isle High School and needed a local concrete supplier.
- Vicari contacted Gator Ready Mix, Inc. (Gator), owned by Theresa and Eddie St. Pierre, and alleges they formed an oral agreement for Gator to supply the concrete for the project.
- Gator's owners instructed Vicari to issue the written purchase order to St. Pierre Ready Mix, Inc. (St. Pierre), a legally separate company owned by Theresa's other son, Kirk St. Pierre, because St. Pierre owned the delivery trucks.
- Believing the two companies were essentially the same, Vicari issued a written purchase order to St. Pierre, which both parties signed.
- Unknown to Vicari, Gator was in liquidation proceedings and had rented its plant and equipment to St. Pierre.
- After construction began, testing revealed that concrete supplied for the project was below the required strength.
- As a result of the defective concrete, Vicari was required to demolish and re-pour fifteen structural columns at its own expense.
Procedural Posture:
- St. Pierre Ready Mix, Inc. initiated two arbitration proceedings against Vicari for unpaid balances.
- In arbitration, Vicari filed a reconventional demand against St. Pierre for damages from the defective concrete.
- The arbitrators issued awards in favor of St. Pierre, which were confirmed by a judgment in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson.
- Vicari paid the judgments rendered in the arbitration.
- Vicari then filed a new lawsuit in the same district court against Gator Ready Mix, Inc. and its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, for breach of an oral contract.
- The trial court denied Gator's exceptions of res judicata, prescription, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Following a bench trial, the trial judge found in favor of Vicari and awarded damages of $116,295.23.
- Gator and Scottsdale, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
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 plaintiff prove the existence of an oral contract for a price over $500 when their testimony is corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the defendant fails to call key witnesses within its control to rebut that testimony, despite the existence of a written agreement with a related third party for the same subject matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Cannella, J.
Yes. A plaintiff successfully proves the existence of an oral contract by providing the testimony of one witness along with corroborating circumstances, which may include the defendant's failure to call witnesses to rebut the testimony. The court found that Vicari's testimony satisfied the 'one witness' requirement of La.C.C. art. 1846. The corroborating circumstances included a letter from Gator's own insurer, Scottsdale, acknowledging the existence of an oral contract, and Vicari's continued communication with Gator's owners about the concrete problems. Critically, the court applied the 'uncalled witness' rule, creating an adverse presumption from Gator's failure to have its owners, Theresa and Eddie St. Pierre, testify to contradict Vicari's account. The court also rejected the res judicata defense, finding Gator and St. Pierre were not the same party for preclusion purposes, meaning the prior arbitration with St. Pierre did not bar the present suit against Gator.
Dissenting - Daley, J.
No. The overwhelming written evidence of a contract with St. Pierre Ready Mix, Inc. supersedes any alleged oral agreement with Gator Ready Mix, Inc. The dissent argued that all documentary evidence—including the bid form, the formal purchase agreement, invoices, shipping documents, test reports, and correspondence from Vicari itself—exclusively identified St. Pierre as the contracting party. Vicari even stated in a letter that St. Pierre was the 'sole party responsible' for the concrete failure. The dissent concluded that the trial court committed manifest error by ignoring this mountain of written evidence in favor of the plaintiff's self-serving testimony about a separate oral contract, which should have been considered superseded by the subsequent written agreement.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the potential power of the 'uncalled witness' presumption in satisfying the corroboration requirement for proving oral contracts under Louisiana law. It demonstrates that a party's litigation strategy, specifically the failure to produce key witnesses, can have substantive evidentiary consequences. The ruling serves as a precedent that even when written documents point to one party, a related entity can be held liable based on prior oral representations, especially in the context of closely-held family businesses where formalities may be blurred. This case complicates contract litigation by showing that a clear written agreement may not be the final word if a plausible, corroborated oral agreement with another party can be established.
