Family Drug Store v. Gulf States Computer Services

Family Drug Store of New Iberia, Inc. v. Gulf States Computer Servs., Inc., 563 So. 2d 1324 (La. App. 1990).

Factual Background
Family Drug Stores of New Iberia, Inc. and Thif-T-Way Pharmacy of Opelousas (“Plaintiff”) purchased a computer software program from Gulf States Computer Services (“Defendant”) in order to expand their pharmacy into the home medical supply business. After the contract for sale of the software was executed and payment was tendered, the Plaintiff attended a training session for the new software. During training the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with software’s performance because: (1) all data could not be displayed on the monitor, rather it must be printed out; (2) the information on the monitor appeared in code; (3) numerical codes were needed to open a new patient file; and (4) the system was unable to scroll. Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was not satisfied and asked for a refund. Defendant refused.

Trial Court Proceedings
Plaintiffs initiated suit in redhibition for the return of the purchase price, or in the alternative, to have the contract of sale declared void because it lacked mutual assent as to the object sold. The District Court held in favor of the Defendant, the Plaintiff appealed.

Appellate Court Proceedings
The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court’s holding. The Court reasoned that the redhibition action failed because the Plainitiff did not prove that the Defendant misrepresented the software at the time during the sale. Further, the Plaintiff conceded that the software’s end result was satisfactory, but thought that the time and effort necessary to reach that end result was too burdensome. The Court found that the software was not defective because no features of the system failed and no misrepresentations regarding the system’s performance and capabilities were made. The Court further reasoned that the Plaintiff’s alternative claim failed since there were no errors in the contract and no misrepresentations were made at any time during or after contract formation. Thus, the Court concluded that there was no error as to the object of the contract which would impair consent to the sale and the contract could not be declared void.