ILNews

COA affirms $55k judgment for couple who purchased wind turbine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that a St. Joseph Superior judge applied the correct legal standard in determining that a company breached a contract with a couple that purchased a wind turbine that failed to live up to the company’s claims.

Roger and Patricia Finney sued Wind Wire LLC in August 2010 alleging, among other things, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and fraud. The Finneys received a brochure from Wind Wire in the mail that touted the benefits of installing a wind turbine. It claimed that a person can save $160 a month on electric bills and homeowners will receive substantial refund on taxes.

When a representative came to talk to the Finneys, he did not clarify the brochure and claimed that the company providing their electric service would buy the excess energy produced by the Finneys’ turbine. They purchased one, but found no energy savings. In fact, it cost them more money on electricity as the turbine used power even when not running.

Judge Jenny Pitts Manier found Wind Wire fraudulently induced the couple to enter into the contract by misrepresenting its experience and expertise. Manier awarded the Finneys a total judgment of $54,893, which included attorney fees and treble damages.

Wind Wire tried to rely on its integration clause in the contract, which disclaimed reliance on any prior representations. In Wind Wire, LLC v. Roger Finney and Patricia Finney, 71A03-1202-PL-78, the COA found Manier did not apply the wrong legal standard, citing Circle Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Y/G Ind., L.P., N.E.2d 176, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).  


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT