Dyna Flex Limited v. Joseph L. Charleville

Defendant Dr. Joseph L. Charleville (""Dentist"") appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Dyna Flex, Ltd. (""Dyna Flex"") for damages in the amount of $11,930.42 plus interest and costs. Dyna Flex brought an action on account against Dentist, alleging that it sold him certain goods for which payment had not been made. Dentist answered that the goods in question, a number of porcelain dental inlays including crowns, bridges, and veneers, ""were improper, ill-fitting, would break upon use and were unusable and . . . the entire delivery was done in a very poor workmanlike manner."" He further asserted by way of counterclaim that, as a result of the alleged defects in the inlays manufactured by Dyna Flex, he lost many patients and the income derived therefrom, and he sought damages of $15,000.00 therefor. On appeal, Dentist contends that the trial court erred in (1) entering against him a judgment that was ""clearly against the weight of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence"" that the inlays were defective, and (2) failing to reduce the award to Dyna Flex by $6554.76, the total of payments Dentist allegedly made to satisfy his debt to Dyna Flex. We affirm. This was a court-tried case and, as such, our review is governed by the oft-cited principles of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. at 32[1].