The McCutchen Company, Inc. v. Media General, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for Media General, Inc., WKRG, and Sue Cosgrove on claims involving alleged fraudulent inducement and breach of an advertising contract. The court held that the alleged representation concerning obtaining at least 50 new customers per month was an opinion or prediction rather than a misrepresentation of material fact, and that the plaintiff lacked substantial evidence of an intent to deceive. The court also held that the contract's unambiguous noncancellation provision controlled over asserted industry standards and affirmed the damages award.

Holdings

1. The alleged statement that the company could expect at least 50 new customers per month was an opinion or prediction of future events, not a misrepresentation of material fact upon which a fraud claim could ordinarily be based.
2. The plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence that Cosgrove had a present intent to deceive when she allegedly made the customer estimate; therefore, summary judgment on the fraud claim was proper.
3. The industry standard permitting cancellation on two weeks' notice did not alter the contract's express terms because the contract clearly specified that it was an annual, noncancellable contract.
4. The damages award was affirmed because the plaintiff cited no relevant legal authority supporting its contention that WKRG had a duty to mitigate damages in the circumstances presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged statement that the advertising campaign would produce at least 50 new customers per month was a misrepresentation of material fact supporting a fraud claim.
2. Whether the plaintiff presented substantial evidence that Cosgrove had a present intent to deceive when she made the alleged statement.
3. Whether an advertising-industry standard permitting cancellation on two weeks' notice could alter the contract's express noncancellable annual terms.
4. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated error in the trial court's award of $48,300 in damages based on WKRG's alleged duty to mitigate.

Disposition

affirmed