Opinion ID: 1395016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Abandoned samples.

Text: The invitation to bid contained a provision that the successful bidder may be required to furnish samples. In his quotations to Ginns for use in preparing its successful bid, Mosteller included an additional charge of $6,113.27 for abandoned samples, and this item was factored into the aggregate bid of $60,532.59 submitted by Ginns. Mosteller sent invoices to Ginns for samples. The first invoice called for payment of $7,263, but Mosteller reduced this to $6,113.27 when Ginns reported to him that the larger figure would cause the total cost to Ginns to exceed that originally quoted by Mosteller and thus cause the total sum charged to the Commonwealth to exceed the aggregate amount of the Ginns bid. One of the later invoices specified that the amount billed was for abandoned sample furniture utilized in making the sale. Mosteller received payment of the corrected invoice for $6,113.27. Kyber signed the bid submitted by Ginns to the Commonwealth. Testifying for the Commonwealth, he explained that it was customary in the furniture industry for manufacturers' representatives to use samples to promote sales. The record shows, however, that when the Ginns bid was accepted, the sale had been successfully brought to contract without the use of samples. Phillips testified that on one occasion Mosteller asked him to sign a letter verifying that there was sample furniture in the Danville hospital. Phillips refused this request because he knew there had never been any sample furniture of any kind in the facility. J. Wesley Scarce, Purchasing Agent for the hospital, also testified that there were no samples at the institution. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's conviction of Mosteller under this count. A reasonable construction of the contract provision is that a successful vendor might be required to leave on the premises samples used in promoting the sale. Therefore, it would be proper for a bidder to include in his bid a charge for samples already used to make the sale, which might be left on the premises. In the present case, however, there were no such samples. The trial court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that Mosteller misrepresented to Ginns that he had used samples worth $6,113.27 in promoting the sale, so that Ginns, anticipating that the Commonwealth might require that these samples be left at the hospital, would include this item in its bid. By this misrepresentation, the Commonwealth paid $6,113.27 for nonexistent samples. Mosteller's conviction under this count will be affirmed.