## Facts

- After a severe ice storm disrupted electrical service at Paul W. Brightmire’s Tulsa home in late December 1987, Brightmire sought to buy a larger portable generator than the 3,200‑watt unit he had rented.
- Brightmire contacted Practical Products Corporation (Practical) to obtain a 5,000‑watt portable generator.
- Practical obtained and tendered a 5,000‑watt generator to Brightmire, but Brightmire refused to accept it.
- Brightmire claimed the tendered generator was not the generator he ordered and also complained that Practical did not provide a user’s manual.
- Practical sued Brightmire in small-claims court for breach of contract, seeking damages tied to costs such as restocking, freight, and modifications (approximately $261).
- Brightmire responded with defenses and counterclaims, including breach of contract and fraud in the inducement.
- The matter was transferred to district court for jury trial.
- The trial court sustained Practical’s demurrer to Brightmire’s fraud counterclaim.
- The district court denied Brightmire’s motion for a directed verdict on Practical’s claim.
- A jury returned verdicts for Practical on both Practical’s claim and Brightmire’s remaining counterclaim(s), awarding Practical $267 in damages.
- The district court denied Brightmire’s post-trial request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial.
- The district court awarded Practical $2,200 in attorney’s fees.
- Brightmire appealed the denial of his directed verdict/JNOV/new trial motions, challenged the jury instructions, and challenged dismissal of his fraud claim.
- Practical cross-appealed, challenging the attorney-fee calculation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Brightmire’s motion for a directed verdict and later denying JNOV or a new trial on Practical’s breach-of-contract claim, where Brightmire asserted he could reject the generator due to alleged nonconformity and lack of a user’s manual.
2. Whether Brightmire established, as a matter of law, that the sales contract included an implied requirement—based on usage of trade or industry custom under Oklahoma’s UCC—that Practical provide a user’s manual, and that failure justified rejection.
3. Whether the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, misstated the law or likely misled the jury on Practical’s claim and Brightmire’s defenses.
4. Whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to Brightmire’s fraud-in-the-inducement counterclaim.
5. On cross-appeal, whether the attorney’s fee award to Practical was calculated under the correct Oklahoma standards.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Practical on the contract dispute, holding that the record contained competent evidence reasonably supporting the jury’s resolution of the parties’ competing accounts of what was ordered, what was tendered, and whether Brightmire had a valid basis to reject.
- The court affirmed the denial of Brightmire’s directed verdict and JNOV/new trial motions because the evidence did not point only one way; the disputed contract and UCC questions were for the jury.
- The court rejected Brightmire’s instructional challenges, concluding the instructions, taken together, fairly presented the governing law and did not warrant reversal.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of Brightmire’s fraud counterclaim, agreeing that the pleaded and proven facts did not establish actionable fraud as distinct from a contract dispute.
- The court reversed in part on Practical’s cross-appeal concerning attorney’s fees and remanded for correction of the fee award under the proper method and standards.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict or JNOV is improper if there is competent evidence that reasonably tends to support the jury’s verdict; on appeal, the court does not reweigh conflicting evidence.
- In a sale-of-goods dispute, questions about contract terms, nonconformity, and the buyer’s right to reject may present fact issues when the proof is disputed.
- Under Oklahoma’s UCC, usage of trade and similar commercial practices may inform or supplement a sales contract, but whether such a practice exists and is part of the parties’ agreement may depend on the evidence presented at trial.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; reversal is warranted only when an instructional error likely caused a miscarriage of justice or denied a substantial statutory or constitutional right.
- Fraud in the inducement requires proof of the elements of fraud; a disagreement about contract performance, without proof of a material misrepresentation made with the required intent and reliance, does not become fraud.
- When a statute authorizes a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees, the trial court must determine a reasonable fee using the correct Oklahoma criteria; a miscalculated award may require remand.

## Conclusion

Practical Products Corp. v. Brightmire held that the jury could resolve the contested evidence about the generator sale and the claimed manual requirement, so the buyer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his rejection defense; the Oklahoma Supreme Court also upheld dismissal of the buyer’s fraud claim but sent the case back to fix the attorney’s fee award.


Practical Products Corp. v. Brightmire, 864 P.2d 330 (1992)