Contract – Breach of Contract – Summary Judgment – Spa – Terms – Unfair Trade Practices

Hodges v. Young. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-16-0239, 7 pp.) (Linda Stephens, J.) Appealed from the Moore County District Court. (Jayrene R. Maness, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full text of the opinion.

Holding: Where the plaintiff sued a spa company manager for breach of contract after he discovered that a two-pump rather than a three-pump spa was installed, the District Court improperly granted the defendant summary judgment since the dispute over the term “three-pump spa” necessarily raises a genuine issue as to a material fact.

We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim but reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on the plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim.

Background

In September 2006, plaintiff purchased a spa from SPS, a North Carolina corporation managed by defendant. According to the invoice received by plaintiff, he paid $6,954 for a 52-jet, three-pump spa with an “ozonator.” The spa was installed by defendant, on behalf of SPS, in November 2006.

In April 2009, plaintiff discovered that the spa installed at his home was actually a two-pump, rather than a three-pump, spa. In August 2009, after plaintiff informed SPS of the problem and requested repair or restitution, plaintiff sued defendant d/b/a SPS, alleging claims for relief based on breach of contract and unfair trade practices.

In October 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging that he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On Feb. 1, 2010, the District Court denied defendants’ motions.

In early March 2010, following a brief period of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. On March 22, 2010, defendants’ summary-judgment motion was granted. Plaintiff appeals.

Analysis

In this case, the evidence clearly shows the existence of a valid contract between the parties: the invoices presented by both parties indicate that plaintiff agreed to pay, and in fact paid, $6,954 to SPS for their delivery and installation of a three-pump spa with an ozonator.

What is less clear is what exactly the terms of the contract were and whether defendants breached those terms.While neither party disputes that the agreement called for the installation of a three-pump spa with an ozonator, the parties dispute the meaning of the term “three-pump spa.”

Based on the defendant’s assertion in his deposition that “the ozonator counts as a third pump,” defendants argue that the disputed “three-pump spa” term called for a spa with three pumps, one of them being an ozonator, and that, consequently, installation of a spa with two pumps and an ozonator satisfied their obligation under the contract.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted an affidavit sworn by Patterson, who claimed to have been “in the business of selling and servicing pools and spas” for 20 years and who averred that “[t]he ozonator is not a pump.” Based on Patterson’s affidavit, plaintiff argues that the disputed “three-pump spa” term called for three pumps, not including the ozonator, and that, therefore, installation of a spa with two pumps and an ozonator was a breach of the terms of the contract.

Because the meaning of the term “three-pump spa” is so obviously central to the determination of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, this dispute by the parties as to the meaning of that term necessarily raises a genuine issue as to a material fact and precludes summary judgment.

We conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.