Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LLC v. B.W. Sullivan Building Contractor, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

January 31, 2017

A1 FIRE SPRINKLER CONTRACTORS, LLC D/B/A A1 FIRE SPRINKLER, LLC, WAYNE MARISCO AND SANDY MARISCO APPELLANTS
v.
B.W. SULLIVAN BUILDING CONTRACTOR, INC. APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/27/2015

         PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. PRENTISS GREENE, TRIAL JUDGE HARRELL

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: HIRAM RICHARD DAVIS

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CAREY R. VARNADO BRIAN RANDOLPH BLEDSOE

          BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON, FAIR AND GREENLEE, JJ.

          FAIR, J.

         ¶1. B.W. Sullivan Building Contractor sued A1 Fire Sprinkler Contractors and its principal, Wayne Marisco, for breach of contract following a dispute over the construction of some aspects of a fire suppression system A1 had claimed were excluded from its bid.[1]After a bench trial, the trial court found that the plain language of the contract included the disputed features and that A1 Fire Sprinkler Contractors' successor LLC, A1 Fire Sprinkler, was required to reimburse B.W. Sullivan for what it had paid to have them built. We agree with the trial court that the contract was unambiguous, but we find that the trial court erred in entering the judgment against the successor LLC, which was not a party to this action. We affirm the judgment as modified.

         DISCUSSION

          1. Interpretation of the Contract

         ¶2. A1 Fire Sprinkler Contractors disputes that it was contractually required to supply and install two items, a concrete water storage tank and a clean agent fire suppression system for one room in the building. A1 denies that it was required to supply or install the clean agent system entirely, and it alleges that the water storage tank it agreed to supply was understood to be steel, rather than concrete, with the steel tank apparently being less expensive.

         ¶3. The contract consists of a brief written document entitled "Contract, " which identifies the project and the parties and states in relevant part:

         DESCRIPTION

         Furnish and install all fire sprinkler systems and fire pump/house as per plans specifications and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.