Pennington Constr. v. R A Eagle Corp. - 94-0575 ( La. App. 1 Cir 03/03/95), 652 So. 2d 637

Rule:

To meet the burden of proof of an oral contract by a witness and other corroborating circumstances, a party may serve as his own witness and the other corroborating circumstances may be general and need not prove every detail of the plaintiff's case. However, the corroborating circumstances that are required must come from a source other than the plaintiff. Whether there were corroborating circumstances sufficient to establish an oral contract is a question of fact.

Facts:

The corporation undertook to have a warehouse built on its property. The contractor claimed that the corporation agreed to award the second phase of the building project to the contractor pursuant to the contractor's contract. The contractor claimed that its signing of a proposal from the contractor to the corporation formed a contract. The trial court found that a contract was formed when the corporation prepared a proposal and it was signed by the contractor. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in failing to consider whether the contractor carried its burden of proving an obligation by the corporation based on an oral contract?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and remanded the judgment for the contractor in its breach of contract action because the trial court overlooked the burden of proof. The trial court failed to characterize the contracts as written or oral, which affected the burden of proof. The two potential contracts were oral, which required corroboration of the existence a contract by one other than the plaintiff. The trial court determined that the contractor was more credible, but there was no corroboration of the contractor's version of what constituted the contract. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to consider whether the contractor carried its burden of proving an obligation by the corporation based on an oral contract.