Pool Supply Contract Case May Bring $1 Million in Damages

aboutbanner
On behalf of Daniel Watkins of Watkins Firm, A Professional Corporation posted on Thursday, October 7, 2010.

A recent California contract law case ended with a verdict that for the plaintiff, a company that helped put a manufacturer’s pool cleaning supplies in stores. The manufacturer, Water Tech, failed to live up to its signed contract, according to SWIM, Inc.

San Diego contract law attorneys following the case noted that the jury agreed with SWIM after a five-day trial in Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court. The verdict said SWIM Inc. was entitled to damages. Water Tech, which is based in East Brunswick, N.J., plans to appeal.

In 2007, Water Tech hired SWIM to help it secure business in the western United States, particularly with the Leslie’s Poolmart stores.

(Continued…)

Before that, Water Tech had been trying for years to get its products into Leslie’s network of approximately 640 stores. Water Tech makes battery-powered, robotic, handheld and commercial pool cleaners.

The pool cleaners were eventually carried by Leslie’s, beginning in the fall of 2008.

The lawsuit was on the question of whether SWIM was, in fact, responsible for the Leslie’s account, and whether it procured enough other accounts throughout the region to satisfy its end of the deal.

In June 2009, Water Tech said SWIM had nothing to do with Water Tech getting the Leslie’s contract, and sought to terminate the agreement. SWIM sued in August 2009 when Water Tech refused to pay two years’ worth of commissions.

Water Tech countersued, claiming SWIM did not fulfill its end of the contract.

Jurors, however, rejected the countersuit and returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs on the breach of contract.

SWIM sought $157,000 in damages. Jurors agreed to treble damages. They also awarded interest, attorney’s fees and additional fees, which, if upheld, could result in a total of more than $1 million to SWIM.

Source: Pool & Spa News “Court Backs Manufacturer’s Rep in Contract Dispute” 10/7/2010