Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Baker v. Wade

    949 S.W.2d 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that damages for breach of warranty and remedies for rejection or revocation of acceptance are “mutually exclusive”

    Keasler, 395 S.W.2d 111, 116[3] (Mo.Sup. 1965). In Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614 (Mo.App. 1991), a buyer sued the firm that sold him a boat. In a multiple count petition, buyer sought rescission of the contract (Counts I and II) and damages for conversion (Count III).

  2. In re Thompson

    315 B.R. 94 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Denying dischargeability of claim under § 523 based partly on debtors failure to offer any credible explanation regarding missing collateral

    An award for damages cannot be based on guesswork or speculation, therefore, I must find that the evidence presented offers a reasonable basis for assessing the damages. See, e.g. Ladeas v. Carter, 845 S.W.2d 45, 53 (Mo.Ct.App. 1992); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991); Lacks v. R. Rowland Co., Inc., 718 S.W.2d 513, 520 (Mo.Ct.App. 1986); Breece v. Jett, 556 S.W.2d 696, 709 (Mo.Ct.App. 1977).Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d at 619 (citations omitted).

  3. Phillips v. Bradshaw

    859 S.W.2d 232 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Applying the standard to a motion to set aside a default judgment

    Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed. Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620[13] (Mo.App.S.D. 1991); Henges Co., Inc. v. May, 223 S.W.2d 110, 113[6] (Mo.App 1949). In other words, the parties are revested with their original rights regarding the subject matter, and they are no longer bound by the contract in regard to their subsequent actions. Alexander, 814 S.W.2d at 620[14]; Henges Co., Inc., 223 S.W.2d at 113[6].

  4. Perficient, Inc. v. Munley

    43 F.4th 887 (8th Cir. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Although nominal damages are "trifling" in value, see "Damages," Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), there is no standard amount awarded to parties under Missouri law.See, e.g. , Heifetz v. Apex Clayton, Inc. , 2015 WL 6737772, at *1 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Oct. 26, 2015) (awarding nominal damages of $1,000), aff'd , 554 S.W.3d 389, 392 (Mo. 2018) ; Green v. Study , 286 S.W.3d 236, 242 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing the trial court's nominal damages award of $1,000 in the replevin context but acknowledging trial courts’ authority to exercise discretion in choosing the amount of a nominal damages award); Evans v. Werle , 31 S.W.3d 489, 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (awarding nominal damages of $1); Morgan Publ'ns, Inc. v. Squire Publishers, Inc. , 26 S.W.3d 164, 176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (affirming a nominal damages award of $2); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc. , 814 S.W.2d 614, 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (affirming a damage award where the nominal damages were $10); see also 24 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 64:10 (4th ed. 1993 & Supp. 2022) (recognizing that "nominal damages have been awarded in greater amounts [than $1]"). The district court thus has yet to determine the value of the nominal damages and "personalize[ ] the remedy."

  5. Dormer v. Alcoa, Inc.

    709 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 77 times
    Reversing a district court decision granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss where the plaintiff made his motion for the purpose of refiling the suit in state court with an additional "diversity-destroying defendant"

    “Plaintiff's retention of the compensation benefits constitutes an election precluding the maintenance of the ‘inconsistent’ tort action.” Ballinger, 788 S.W.2d at 515;see also Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (“Where a party has a right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, makes his election [and] receives something of value on the claim, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.”); Grote Meat Co. v. Goldenberg, 735 S.W.2d 379, 386 (Mo.Ct.App.1987) (indicating the election of remedies doctrine is binding when “there has been a gain by the plaintiff and a loss by the defendant”).

  6. Williams v. Agribank, FCB

    972 F.2d 962 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that a judgment can be affirmed on any grounds fairly supported by the record

    "Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed." Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991). "[R]escission may be shown by acts and declarations of the parties which are inconsistent with the continued existence of the previous contract."

  7. Williams v. Mahmood

    6:21-cv-03074-RK (W.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2022)

    The measure of damages for a claim of conversion under Missouri law is generally the market value of the property at the time of conversion. Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991).

  8. Chicago Truck Drivers v. Brotherhood Labor Leasing

    950 F. Supp. 1454 (E.D. Mo. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Finding state-law counterclaims in withdrawal liability action preempted by ERISA

    Rescission of a contract extinguishes it as effectually as if it had never been made, and restores the parties to the positions they occupied before the contract was executed.Williams v. AgriBank, FCB, 972 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991)). Therefore, the parties to that lawsuit were placed in the same position they were in prior to executing the stock sale transaction.

  9. Miller v. United Automax

    No. W2003-01394-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 13, 2004)

    . . . with the advent of the liberalized pleading rules, most courts will not invoke the doctrine [of election of remedies] unless (1) the plaintiff has prosecuted the chosen remedy either to final judgment or a determinative conclusion, see Gottschalk v.Simpson, 422 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1988); Christensen v. Eggen, 577 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998); Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620-21 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991); Family Bankof Commerce v. Nelson, 72 Or. App. 739, 697 P.2d 216, 218 (Or. Ct. App. 1985), or (2) the defendant has materially changed its position based on the plaintiff's choice of remedy. See Ripple v. Wold, 549 N.W.2d at 675-76.

  10. Davis v. Tennessee D.O.E.S

    23 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 96 times
    Stating "recusal motions must be filed promptly after the facts forming the basis for the motion become known, and the failure to seek recusal in a timely manner results in a waiver of a party's right to question a judge's impartiality"

    However, with the advent of the liberalized pleading rules, most courts will not invoke the doctrine unless (1) the plaintiff has prosecuted the chosen remedy either to final judgment or a determinative conclusion, see Gottschalk v. Simpson, 422 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1988); Christensen v. Eggen, 577 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998);Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614, 620-21 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991); Family Bank of Commerce v. Nelson, 697 P.2d 216, 218 (Or.Ct.App. 1985), or (2) the defendant has materially changed its position based on the plaintiff's choice of remedy.See Ripple v. Wold, 549 N.W.2d at 675-76.