Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05176/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05176-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

.,,,-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L .. _, .J ,. United S~tes Coμ rt of Appeall' 

ALBERT J . WATKINS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES PURCHASING EXCHANGE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

'Ienth C1!-f'!Uit 

DEC 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5176 

(D.C. No. 92-C-22-B) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument . 

Mr. Watkins, a pro se litigant, commenced this civil 

diversity action seeking $100,000 in damages resulting from his 

failure to receive fifty bonus items he believed defendant had 

promised him. Defendant, attaching the necessary evidentiary 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5176 Document: 010110151593 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 1 
.. / 

matters, moved for summary judgment, which was granted. We 

affirm. 

Mr. Watkins received a sales promotion from defendant which 

stated he could receive "from five up to fifty" bonus items if he 

made a purchase. Mr. Watkins made the purchase and received five 

bonus items. Mr. Watkins felt he should receive all fifty bonus 

items. The number of items Mr. Watkins received was pre-selected 

by Price Waterhouse. 

Mr. Watkins appeals the summary judgment asserting, inter 

alia, that: (1) Defendant guaranteed he would receive fifty bonus 

items; (2) Defendant, in its supporting affidavits, failed to give 

an address for Price Waterhouse; and (3) "Appellant [Mr. Watkins] 

is tired of correcting their lies." 

Our standard of review of a summary judgment is de novo. A 

reading of the sales brochure reveals that a buyer would receive 

not less than the minimum (which Mr. Watkins received) "up to 

fifty." The advertisement further states "only those Certificates 

with a red star are eligible to receive the maximum." Each sales 

brochure was pre-coded to receive particular bonus items based 

upon prior random selection by Price Waterhouse. 

Applying a liberal reading to Mr. Watkins' claims, it appears 

he is contending 

fifty bonus items. 

defendant breached 

This is simply not 

-2-

its contract to award him 

so. Mr. Watkins' sales 

Appellate Case: 92-5176 Document: 010110151593 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 2 
, ' 

brochure, which he produced, contains no promises except that he 

would receive at a minimum five bonus items. 

receive the minimum five bonus items. 

Mr. Watkins did 

Mr. Watkins asserted that because his brochure contained a 

red star, he was promised fifty items. The brochure states: 

"Only those certificates with a Red Star are eligible to receive 

the maximum number of items." It does not state he will receive 

fifty items, only that he is eligible. The language was clear. 

Defendant did not breach his contract. 

Again, applying the principle of liberal construction, if Mr. 

Watkins' claim is based upon misrepresentation, none exists. All 

factual representations were fulfilled. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5176 Document: 010110151593 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 3