Case Title: Gus' Catering, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems

Citation: 171 Vt. 556, 762 A.2d 804

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gus' Catering, Inc. v Menusoft Systems (99-283); 171 Vt. 556; 762 A.2d 804

[Filed 25-Jul-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-283

                               JUNE TERM, 2000

Gus' Catering, Inc.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
Menusoft Systems	               }	DOCKET NO. 405-8-98 Wncv

Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Gus' Catering appeals from a Washington Superior Court grant
  of summary judgment  to defendant Menusoft Systems.  Plaintiff contends
  that the court erroneously dismissed its alleged  claims of breach of
  warranty, breach of contract, and negligence.  We affirm.

       The material facts, alleged in plaintiff's original and amended
  complaints, are not in dispute.   On or about April 1994, plaintiff
  purchased a "Digital Dining" computer software program,  manufactured by
  defendant, and computer hardware from Point of Sale Systems, Inc., an
  authorized  distributor for defendant.  A Point of Sale Systems employee
  set up, installed, and configured the  computer at plaintiff's restaurant,
  assisted by a technical representative of defendant.  The computer  system
  did not perform properly, however, frequently shutting down during the
  restaurant's busiest  times.  Plaintiff immediately contacted defendant and
  Point of Sale Systems about the computer  problems.  Despite several
  service calls over the next two years by the same Point of Sale Systems 
  employee who had installed the computer, as well as advice from defendant,
  the problems persisted.

       Eventually, defendant terminated its distributorship with Point of
  Sale Systems and referred  plaintiff to a technical representative from
  another authorized distributor.  The new technical  representative
  identified and solved all of plaintiff's computer problems during a single
  two-hour  service call on July 22, 1996.  Plaintiff has had no problems
  with the program since.

       Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant on July 20, 1998,
  alleging that the computer  system had not been installed properly in 1994,
  causing the problems that had plagued the program  over the next two
  years. (FN1) Plaintiff claimed that defendant had failed to properly
  instruct Point  of Sale Systems in the appropriate installation and
  maintenance of the system: "The Defendant  Menusoft Systems

 

  Corporation at all times has failed to provide the appropriate technical
  assistance and expertise in  this matter, and, therefore, breached its
  express and implied warranties in this matter."  Plaintiff  claimed that it
  suffered a "great amount of loss of time in attempting to correct the
  difficulties caused  by the improper installation of the system, to include
  loss of business profits and other costs, as well  as attorney's fees."  

       After plaintiff admitted, in response to defendant's request, that
  tender of delivery of the  computer system had occurred prior to July 19,
  1994, defendant moved for summary judgment on  the ground that plaintiff's
  warranty claim was time barred by 9A V.S.A. § 2-725's four-year statute of 
  limitations.  Plaintiff then moved to amend its original complaint.  This
  amended complaint alleged  that defendant's technical representative
  negligently assisted in the installation of the computer  system and
  negligently advised plaintiff and Point of Sales Systems regarding the
  persistent program  problems.  Plaintiff claimed that "[a]s a direct result
  of the negligence of the [d]efendant, the  [p]laintiff suffered damages by
  virtue of loss of business profits and loss of customers, as well as loss 
  of time in trying to correct the myriad of difficulties caused by the
  improper installation of the digital  dining system." 

       On April 27, 1999, the court granted defendant's summary judgment on
  plaintiff's first  complaint, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because
  the four-year statute of limitations had run.  The  court also denied
  plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint because the amendment was futile,
  as  plaintiff had claimed only economic losses which are not recoverable on
  a negligence theory.  This  appeal followed.

       We review a motion for summary judgment using the same standard as the
  trial court.  See  O'Donnell v. Bank of Vermont, 166 Vt. 221, 224,