Gulfport-Biloxi Reg. Airport Authority v. Montclair Travel Agency, Inc., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-00904-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-19-2006
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Misrepresentations
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2004
Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge: Stephen Simpson
Disposition: COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
Case Number: A2401-2004-86

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: GULFPORT-BILOXI REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY




CY FANECA, HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN



 

Appellee: MONTCLAIR TRAVEL AGENCY, INC. D/B/A MONTCLAIR TRAVEL AND PETER A. ZIMMERMANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT OF MONTCLAIR TRAVEL MONTCLAIR TRAVEL AGENCY, INC. (PRO SE), PETER A. ZIMMERMANN (PRO SE)  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Misrepresentations

Summary of the Facts: Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport Authority filed suit against the Montclair Travel Agency, Inc. and its agent, Peter A. Zimmermann, alleging that Montclair was liable for damages for breach of implied or quasi-contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, grossly negligent and/or intentional misrepresentations and/or fraud in the inducement, equitable and/or promissory estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duties. At the close of GBRAA’s case-in-chief, Montclair moved for a directed verdict. The court granted Montclair’s motion. GBRAA appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: GBRAA argues that it established a prima facie case of fraudulent/intentional misrepresentations, grossly negligent/negligent misrepresentations, quasi-contract/quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. According to GBRAA, the record shows that Montclair knew or should have known that the Concorde would not be available for a GBIA departure and that Montclair misrepresented that fact. GBRAA further argues that Montclair misrepresented that it was acting as the agent of British Airways and Air France and that the record is void of any evidence to rebut the conclusion that Montclair was at least negligent, if not grossly negligent, in making the representations that it did to GBRAA. The record unequivocally shows that Montclair did hold itself out as an agent of British Airways and Air France, as evidenced by Montclair’s brochure for the promotion. The record supports the assertion that Montclair knew or should have known about the Concorde’s unavailability. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court