Marino v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 9, 1982 411 So. 2d 690; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 10, 1975 324 So. 2d 26
Marino v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 376 So. 2d 1311 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979).
Cited by
- Frederick Kirk D/B/A Exactax v. Interface Security System, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
- Isadore v. Interface Security Systems 58 So. 3d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
- Bonfiglio v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. 619 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- Soileau & Coreil v. Trans-Western Publishing 542 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
- Louisiana Shoes v. SOUTH CENT. BELL TEL. 445 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
- Roll-Up Shutters, Inc. v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 394 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
- Hennessy v. South Central Bell Tel. Co. 382 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Wilson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. 194 So. 2d 739
- Bunch v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 356 So. 2d 104
Opinion text
376 So.2d 1311 (1979) Lawrence MARINO, d/b/a Marino's Florist v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. No. 12757. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. October 8, 1979. Mac R. Trelles, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant, Lawrence Marino. Victor A. Sachse, III, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, South Central Bell Tel. Co. Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ. PONDER, Judge. Plaintiff appealed from a summary judgment dismissing this suit for damages based on breach of contract and on negligence. We affirm. Plaintiff contracted with defendant for the publication of yellow-pages advertising. *1312 The advertisement was omitted from the book; plaintiff claims he suffered a loss of business. There was a clause in the contract limiting damages to the charges paid. Such a provision has been declared valid. Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1967). The charges have been refunded; so summary judgment was proper as to a cause of action based on contract. However, plaintiff also asserted negligence because of defendant's failure to include the ad in the book, to proof-read the pages, and to notify plaintiff of the omission. However, we believe that these allegations are simply restatements of the breach of the contract. This, then, would be covered by the contractual provision limiting damages. [1] We are not impressed with plaintiff's argument that the limitation provision should be invalidated because it was not called to his attention during the hurried signing of the contract. We have examined the contract signed by the parties and do not find it misleading in its containment on the front and back of the page, especially in view of its reference on the front immediately above plaintiff's signature to the "terms and conditions set forth on the reverse side hereof." For these reasons we affirm the judgment at appellant's costs. AFFIRMED. NOTES [1] We find Bunch v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 356 So.2d 104 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978) inapplicable because that case involved a contract that had been fulfilled plus negligence not arising from the contract.