Elite International Enterprise, Inc. v. Patton Wallcoverings, Inc. et al

Filing 77

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and AWARD OF DAMAGES. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Elite International Enterprise, Inc.,
Case No. 12-14620
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
Patton Wallcoverings, Inc. and Norwall
Group, Inc.,
Defendants.
/

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND AWARD OF DAMAGES
A bench trial was held in this case on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th of July 2014. What
follows are the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the issues
tried. Additionally, the Court's award of damages to Plaintiff is contained herein.
I.

FINDINGS REGARDING BACKGROUND FACTS
1. James Patton ("Mr. Patton") is president and one of two owners of Defendant

Patton Wallcoverings, Inc ("PWI"). Mr. Patton testified that PWI currently owns the rights
to the Norwall brand of wallpaper, which was formerly owned by Norwall Group, Inc., the
now defunct, former parent company of PWI.1 PWI sells wallcoverings around the world,
most relevantly, in the Middle East. PWI is based in Ohio.
2. Patton sells Norwall brand product, generally in six types: small prints, stripes,
damasks, silk textures, kitchens, and large scale designs. Across those types, Patton may
have up to thirty collections at a given time. For the purposes of sales, the collections are
1

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to testimony are to the testimony given
during the bench trial held from July 23, 2014, through July 25, 2014.

presented in books made up of samples of the wallpaper product. The books are a useful
sales tool, for sales made both to the distributor and to the end-use retailer, as they allow
for the product to be experienced first-hand, as opposed to only in picture. The books
themselves, however, are not a source of more than de minimis revenue, as they are often
given away or sold at or near cost.
3. Rami Kseri ("Mr. Kseri") is the owner of Plaintiff, Elite International Enterprise,
Inc. ("Elite"). Mr. Kseri testified that he has been conducting business with PWI since 2006.
Mr. Kseri's contact with PWI was initially as a result of PWI's contract with KDE, a company
owned by Mr. Kseri's father. Mr. Kseri travels to the Middle East in support of his sales
efforts, but he primarily runs Elite from an office in Michigan.
4. The testimony during the bench trial laid out in great detail the workings of a
portion of the wallcoverings industry. As it relates to the parties, PWI was a manufacturer
of wallcoverings, however, PWI no longer actually manufactures its own product. Instead,
PWI designs and owns the intellectual property behind its lines of wallcoverings, and,
through a contractual arrangement, has its product manufactured in South Korea by a
company called DID Wallcoverings ("DID").
5. Mr. Kseri's role was to generate sales of PWI product in the Middle East to
businesses that then resell the product to consumers. In that sense, Mr. Kseri worked as
a distributor and sales agent for PWI. In general, PWI and/or DID sells wallpaper at a price
between $7.00 and $8.00 to companies like Elite, which then re-sells the product. Both Mr.
Patton and DID's deposed representative claimed to have no knowledge of the pricing at
the next steps in the chain of sales in the Middle Eastern market. Mr. Kseri, on the other

2

hand, claims detailed knowledge of that chain of commerce, which the Court will address
in the following section.
6. Mr, Kseri worked to sell PWI products during the course of the contract between
PWI and KDE, from March 1, 2007 through April 1, 2010. By May 2009, Mr. Kseri's sales
were primarily of the Texture Styles, Simply Silk, and Classic Silk collections, plus Limited
Edition Arabella and Limited Edition Chateau, two collections that were custom made for
Mr. Kseri by cobbling together various patterns from older collections. Mr. Patton testified
that the collections that Mr. Kseri was having success selling were substantially, if not
completely, comprised of the texture style of wall covering, as opposed to the kitchen or
stripe styles. However, Mr. Kseri did indicate via email that the Damask style was in
demand. Ex. 17. The Damask style is not a texture style, per Mr. Patton's own testimony.
7. After the KDE contract terminated in 2010, Mr. Kseri and PWI continued to
conduct business in the same manner they had been for the previous few years. After
approximately one year, in March 2011, Mr. Kseri, this time through his company, Elite,
entered into a three-year agency/distribution contract with PWI. It is that contract that Elite
is seeking damages on.
II.

FINDINGS REGARDING THE FACTUAL BASES OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGES
Based on the evidence submitted during trial, the Court makes the following findings

of fact regarding Elite's lost profit claim:
8. Mr. Kseri implemented a sales and pricing system that had three price points per
roll of wallpaper: $13, $15, and $18. Generally speaking, as the size of an order increased,
the price-per-roll decreased. The average sales price was $15 per roll.
3

9. Mr. Patton told Mr. Kseri that the $13-$15-$18 pricing was too high. Mr. Kseri
disagreed, and disregarded Mr. Patton's advice on the matter.
10. There was no testimony, live or otherwise, to contradict Mr. Kseri's statements
regarding the price at which wallpaper is sold in the Middle East after the initial sale from
a manufacturer to a distributor. Indeed, Mr. Patton admitted to not knowing about the prices
at which wallpaper sells in the Middle East at the next step in the chain of commerce.

11. From at least 2009 through the end of 2011, Mr. Kseri aggressively sought to
establish a client base in the Middle East. Admitted into evidence are email
communications between Mr. Kseri and potential customers in countries such as Iran,
Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. For example, the Court notes
email correspondence between Mr. Kseri and the following people and/or businesses:
a- Padide Bahraini at Tisser Co in Iran Ex 57
b- Osama Kayyali at Neneh Interiors in Jordan. Ex. 58
c- Shabbir Hasan in the United Arab Emirates. Ex. 60
d- James Prathap at NGC Nafees, discussing a large deal for United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain. Ex. 28
e- The Mowafak Comany in Saudi Arabia. Ex. 29.
f- Souheil Houbbane in Morocco. Ex. 33.
12. The email communications referenced above range from initial inquires about
products and prices to more detailed negotiations.
13. Also in evidence are emails between Mr. Kseri and various employees of PWI.

4

14. Many of these emails support Mr. Kseri's testimony that he was actively building
a sales framework in the Middle East. Also highlighted by the emails, however, are the
ongoing problems with Mr. Kseri's orders. Mr. Kseri testified that the problems were largely
out of his control, and were varied, for instance one order was not honored because the
rolls used to the print the wallpaper had been decommissioned, there were delays in
introducing new products, and back orders were common.
15. On August 25, 2011, Mr. Patton sent an email to Mr. Kseri indicating that PWI
would be limiting the product that PWI would make available to Elite. Ex. 52. The Court
ruled in its April 24, 2014 Opinion and Order that this act by PWI constituted a breach of
the March 2011 distribution agreement.
16. The record reflects that PWI followed through with Mr. Patton's August 25 email
and would not accept orders from Elite for any products that he had not already placed
orders for. Mr. Patton's decision prohibited the sale of products to Elite that Mr. Kseri had
used as part of his sales pitch over the past twelve to eighteen months in his effort to build
a customer base.
17. The Court finds that potential sales relationships, including but not limited to
those noted above, were derailed as a result of PWI's breach.
18. Elite's relationship with Asio African, the Egyptian company that Mr. Kseri helped
to establish, deteriorated as a result of numerous factors, including PWI's breach and
subsequent sales of wallpaper to Asio African, either through DID or directly. The Court has
already found, however, that PWI's sale to other entities in the region was not a breach of
the March 2011 contract. April 24, 2014 Opinion and Order, p. 14 [Dkt. 48].

5

19. The record contains email correspondence between Mr. Kseri and PWI
personnel after the August 25 email, wherein Mr. Kseri can be seen attempting to either
place new orders or inquiring as to the status of orders already placed. Ex. 55, 56, & 62.
20. PWI authorized DID to sell directly into the Middle East, which it had not
previously been doing. Ex. 74. The authorization also granted final approval of DID's choice
of customer to PWI. Id.
21. Mr. Kseri testified, and Mr. Patton confirmed, that Elite's attempt to secure
product directly from DID so that he could continue to make sales was rebuffed as a result
of the new terms of the PWI-DID contract and Mr. Patton's directions to DID on this point.
22. Testimony established that DID increased its marketing efforts, including setting
up a large booth at the annual international wallpaper trade show.
23. DID sales into the Middle East of relevant product during the time remaining on
the March 2011 contract after the time of PWI's breach totaled 74,403 rolls of wall covering.
Ex. 571. The following is a breakdown of DID Middle East sales from the third quarter of
2001 through February 2014, by collection:
a- Simply Silks 2: 16,382 rolls
b- Texture Style: 6,684 rolls
c- Classic Silks: 10,504 rolls
d- Black & White: 5,757 rolls
e- Silk Impressions: 9,360 rolls
f- Stripes & Damask: 15,108 rolls
g- Rose Garden: 10,608 rolls
6

24. Simply Silks 2, Texture Style, and Classic Silks were still available to Elite, per
Mr. Patton's August 25 email, however Elite's ability to sell these products was curtailed by
the fact that he was placed in position where he could not fully comply with the terms of
deals that he was negotiating with prospective customers regarding the new products. This
resulted in the further deterioration of Elite's customer relationships. See Ex. 58.
Compounding this problem is the fact that PWI would not send Elite books of Simply Silk,
Texture Style or Classic Silk thereby further limiting Mr. Kseri's ability to market and sell
those products. Ex. 56.
25. Mr. Kseri testified that he would have been able to make even more sales than
those listed above if it were not for PWI's breach, however Mr. Kseri also testified that his
sales efforts were directed at a different segment of the market than DID's sales efforts.
26. The testimony established an average sales price of $15 per roll by Elite. After
purchasing product from PWI at, on average, $7.50 per roll, Elite was operating at a 100%
markup, with a 50% profit margin.
27. Mr. Kseri's testimony and Elite's tax returns support a finding that Elite spent, on
average, $50,000 per year in support of its sales efforts. Ex. 559, 560.
28. The evidence does not support a finding that Elite had successfully established
the foundation for a sales network with Indian clients.
III.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As noted above, the Court has already ruled that the August 25, 2011 email

constituted a breach of contract by PWI. As a result, this analysis will be focused on Elite's
claim for lost profits. This is a challenge for the Court, because, as the facts above show,
at the time of the breach Elite was in a position to increase its sales revenue, in part, by
7

way of the new collections set to be released after the breach. However, as a result of the
breach, Elite was unable to reap the benefits of the position that it had worked to attain.
Neither party's arguments on this point are particularly helpful. The facts, contrary
to PWI's arguments, do support an award of damages. That being said, other than the lack
of a denial by Mr. Patton on this point, nothing in the record suggests that Elite would have
made the $250,000 per year for the duration of the March 2011 contract that Elite is
seeking.
There are two competing threads in Michigan's law for the award of lost profits.
Michigan courts have sought to balance the right of recovery against the prohibition against
conjecture and speculation in fact-finding. In striking that balance, the Michigan Court of
Appeals has noted that:
For a plaintiff to be entitled to damages for lost profits, the losses must be
subject to a reasonable degree of certainty and cannot be based solely on
mere conjecture or speculation; however, mathematical certainty is not
required, and even where lost profits are difficult to calculate and are
speculative to some degree, they are still allowed as a loss item. Lorenz
Supply Co. v. American Standard, Inc., 100 Mich.App. 600, 612, 300 N.W.2d
335 (1980), aff'd. 419 Mich. 610, 358 N.W.2d 845 (1984). The type of
uncertainty which will bar recovery of damages is “uncertainty as to the fact
of the damage and not as to its amount ... [since] where it is certain that
damage has resulted, mere uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude the
right of recovery.” Wolverine Upholstery Co. v. Ammerman, 1 Mich.App. 235,
244, 135 N.W.2d 572 (1965), quoting 15 Am Jur, Damages, § 23, pp
414–416. As early as 1863, the Supreme Court clarified that
The law does not require impossibilities; and can not,
therefore, require a higher degree of certainty than the nature
of the case admits. And we can see no good reason for
requiring any higher degree of certainty in respect to the
amount of damages, than in respect to any other branch of the
cause. Juries are allowed to act upon probable and inferential,
as well as direct and positive proof. And when, from the nature
of the case, the amount of the damages can not be estimated
with certainty, or only a part of them can be so ascertained, we
8

can see no objection to placing before the jury all the facts and
circumstances of the case, having any tendency to show
damages, or their probable amount; so as to enable them to
make the most intelligible and probable estimate which the
nature of the case will permit.
Allison v. Chandler, 11 Mich. 542, 554–555 (1863), quoted with approval in
Muskegon Agency, Inc. v. General Telephone Co. of Mich., 350 Mich. 41,
50–51, 85 N.W.2d 170 (1957).
Bonelli v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 421 N.W.2d 213, 226 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Furthermore, the Michigan Court of Appeals specifically acknowledged the fact that
some situations will require estimations of damages, and the law does not preclude an
award based solely on that fact. See Body Rustproofing, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 385
N.W.2d 797, 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (stating that "when the nature of a case permits
only an estimation of damages or a part of the damages with certainty, it is proper to place
before the jury all the facts and circumstances which have a tendency to show their
probable amount.").
In a more recent, unpublished decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals parsed a
plaintiff's evidence, finding that, while it occupied the ground somewhere between an
algebraic certainty and complete speculation, the evidence was sufficient to support an
award of damages. Bero Motors, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 257675, 2006 WL 2312182
(Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2006). Bero Motors is particularly useful in this analysis because
it highlights an aspect of the speculation analysis that is relevant to the data before the
Court. That is, in Bero Motors the Michigan Court of Appeals found that using sales data
of competitors or from other markets was acceptable in making a final determination on
damages, so long as the sales data used was not itself speculative. Bero Motors, Inc., 2006

9

WL 2312182 at *8. Armed with such data, the fact-finder is tasked with weighing its
credibility and persuasiveness in reaching a final award. Id.
In this case, "it is certain that damage has resulted [from PWI's breach]" and the
Court will not allow "mere uncertainty as to the amount [to] preclude the right of recovery."
Bonelli, 421 N.W.2d at 226. The Court will base its damages calculation on the sales record
of DID for the contract period in the relevant regions of the relevant products. This data is
not speculative; it is up to the Court, as the fact finder, to weigh its applicability. Additionally,
the Court has before it a record that supports a finding that Mr. Kseri worked to build a
nascent sales network in the Middle East. There is also undisputed evidence that DID was
increasing its marketing efforts, which would have aided Mr. Kseri's sales efforts had the
relationship between PWI and Elite not soured as it did.
While the record reflects that Elite and PWI did conduct limited business after the
August 25 email, the Court is of the opinion that Elite's eventual total cessation of Norwall
brand sales was a result of PWI's breach. That is, while PWI in theory agreed to continue
to service Elite's older products, the act of cutting off the new products predictably resulted
in Elite's customers losing interest and taking their business elsewhere, thereby destroying
Elite's ability to sell even the older products. Further compounding Elite's problems, PWI
refused to provide it with sales books on all but two of the older lines.
PWI's claims that Elite only sold texture products is undermined by an email from
Mr. Kseri to a PWI employee stating that the Damask wall paper - a non-texture style - was
one of the most in demand styles in the region. This assertion by Mr. Kseri is borne out by
DID's sales numbers for the Stripes & Damask line, which was the second highest selling
product during the contract term.
10

In comparing the volume of sales that DID made with those that Elite could have
made, the Court finds that for every sale made by DID, Elite had a 66.6667% chance of
benefitting from that sale.2 That is, because DID and Elite sell to different segments of the
wallpaper industry, comparing their sales on a one-to-one basis is of limited utility. The
Court is therefore constructing a analytical framework within which Elite was still able to
freely place orders with PWI or DID for Norwall brand product for sale in the Middle East,
as it was entitled to do under its contract. Under that construct, the Court finds that, if Elite
was still operating optimally, it would have had a two-thirds chance of being the buyer for
every sale that DID made into the Middle East and then turning around and successfully
reselling the product at the $15 average sales price. Informing the Court's analysis on this
point is the fact of Elite's pre-existing position within the PWI-DID universe. That is, all other
things being equal, it more likely than not, although not a certainty, that when PWI and/or
DID sought to make sales in the Middle East, Elite would have been the first entity
approached regarding the sale. Elite also appears to have been constantly attempting to
open up new sales territory within the region, and as such, would likely have been the
business responsible for the bulk of the sales into the region. Also factoring in to this
determination is the fact that DID's marketing efforts could only have helped Elite's sales,
as its potential clients would have been more likely to know about and want the product that

2

Admittedly, there is no hard data in the record that would allow the Court to calculate
Plaintiff's odds of making a sale, however, taking into account all of the testimony and
evidence presented during the trial, the Court is of the opinion that allocating a two-thirds
probability in this case strikes a fair balance between Plaintiff's sales ability and local
knowledge, and DID's sheer size.
11

Elite could have been selling as a result of DID's efforts to increase Norwall's global brand
visibility.
Furthermore, the facts establish that Elite was operating a business with, on
average, a 50% profit margin, and $50,000 in fixed annual costs.
As to the Indian market, the evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Kseri had
even the beginnings of a foothold in India, and no damages will be awarded for that market.
As to PWI's claims that Elite failed to mitigate its damages, the record does not
support such a finding. Immediately after receiving the August 25 email, Mr. Kseri
scrambled to limit his exposure. Indeed, PWI went so far as to accuse Mr. Kseri of
attempting to cut it out of a failed deal with DID, which is, if nothing else, a clear attempt at
mitigation. Additionally, Elite's ability to mitigate by selling other brands of wall covering,
such as Blue Mountain, was something of an illusion, as Mr. Kseri's testimony established
that his arrangement with Blue Mountain was only for children's products adorned with
super hero and cartoon character designs. Such a product necessarily has a limited
customer base.
The Court therefore finds that Elite has met its burden in establishing the facts
necessary to support an award of damages for lost profits resulting from PWI's breach of
the March 2011 contract. The damages calculations follow.
IV.

DAMAGES
In light of the above findings, the Court calculates Elite's damages as follows:
74,493 rolls of wall paper sold by DID in the region at Elite's $15 average sales

price, with a 50% profit margin and 66.6667% sales probability is $372,465.18. Taking into

12

account Elite's average annual fixed costs over the three year term of the contract
($150,000.00), the final damages amount for Elite's lost profits is $222,465.18.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court AWARDS Plaintiff Elite International

Enterprise, Inc. $222,465.01 in damages for its lost profits as a result of Defendant Patton
Wallcoverings Inc.'s breach of contract. A judgment in the aforementioned amount shall be
entered forthwith.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: September 2, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on September 2, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

13