Weston International Corp. v. Woodlawn Supermarkets, Inc.

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Although the origin of contractual relationships is somewhat obscure, 1 no one can seriously doubt that in today’s world a contract is to commerce what breath is to life — fundamental, without whose existence neither could long survive. ³⁹¹ The instant appeal, arising from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Hammerman, J.), involves an agreement that the appellant, Weston International Corporation, trading as Weston Leasing Company (Weston), views as a lease while the appellee, Woodlawn Supermarkets, Inc., trading as Food-A-Rama (Woodlawn), perceives it to be a contract of sale. A jury decided that the “agreement” was in fact a contract of sale, and awarded compensatory damages to Woodlawn of $7,718.82 and punitive damages in the amount of $25,000. After post-trial motions for a judgment non obstante veredicto or new trial were denied by the trial judge, Weston appealed to this Court.

Here it raises hexad issues, three of which question evidentiary rulings by the trial judge, two involve the matter of punitive damages and one is directed at the judge’s refusal to grant a requested jury instruction. Woodlawn has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Weston has failed to follow the Maryland Rules of Procedure. We shall deal with the latter motion inasmuch as it is dispositive of the appeal. Woodlawn observes that Weston has made a number of errors with respect to its, Weston’s, brief and record extract.

Not all the alleged errors are of such magnitude as to require dismissal of Weston’s appeal, but some do carry that sanction. The appellee asserts, and we agree, that the appellant’s record extract is deficient in the following respects: 1. The judgment appealed from is not within the extract. Md. Rule 1028 b 1(a). 2.

Appropriate means of indicating omissions in the testimony are not used. Md. Rule 1028 a. 3. References to the printed extract are not properly designated. Md. Rule 1031 a.

Violations of Rule 1028 a and b permit this Court to dismiss, as is true also with respect to Rule 1031 a. If that were all there is to the appellee’s motion to dismiss, we would be inclined to pass an appropriate order, short of dismissal, but ³⁹² those violations pale into insignificance when the more serious breaches of the rules relative to extracts are concerned. Appellee’s (Plaintiff) exhibit 4, as presented into evidence clearly depicts the initials of “FS” to an interlineation on the contract of sale, or the lease, depending upon whether one is the appellant or the appellee. The initials are important because