UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT v. HUBERT DOREL PLANKENHORN, Bankruptcy No. 97-35143 - Aug. 10, 1998.

FACTS: In 1990, Larry Browneller approached Hubert Plankenhorn about repairing and restoring his 1963 Chevrolet Impala convertible. At the time, Mr. Plankenhorn was a semi-retired mechanic who restored classic and antique cars. Due to the poor condition of the Chevrolet Impala convertible, Mr. Browneller supplied three other 1963 Chevrolet Impala convertibles to Mr. Plankenhorn to take parts from the extra Chevrolet Impalas and apply them to the initial convertible. After examining the initial convertible, Mr. Plankenhorn told Mr. Browneller that the Impala convertible was not restorable. Eventually, the two parties agreed to Mr. Plankenhorn using a hardtop Chevrolet Impala for the base of the vehicle and to turn it into a convertible. Both parties also agreed that the final product would not be at “show car” quality and that the identification numbers of various parts would not be the same. Mr. Browneller insisted to Mr. Plankenhorn that he wanted a “Damn good job” on the final expectations. The two parties established a payment structure where Mr. Browneller paid up front for specified materials and the labor costs for each phase of the repair on the car. For the materials, Mr. Plankenhorn used the parts specified by Mr. Browneller and purchased less rare materials, for the parts not specified, while using the money given to him. For the labor costs, Mr. Plankenhorn charged $10 per hour, which is considerably lower than the market standard. Mr. Browneller did not contest the labor costs. Over a period of six years, Mr. Browneller provided the financial resources while Mr. Plankenhorn worked considerably on Mr. Browneller’s Convertible. From time to time, Mr. Browneller went to Mr. Plankenhorn to check on the status of the vehicle. Mr. Browneller, owning several classic cars and being familiar with the car restoration process, did not express any complaints with the work that was being done by Mr. Plankenhorn. Once the body of the car was finalized, Mr. Plankenhorn subcontracted the car’s paint job to a third party. Upon total completion of the car’s repair, Mr. Browneller picked up the car, paid Mr. Plankenhorn $10,902.00 for the total repairs, and appeared to be satisfied with the quality and quantity of the work. A week after picking up the car, Mr. Browneller raised complaints with the paint job being uneven due to how Mr. Plankenhorn repaired the car. He also claimed that various elements of the car did not work such as the alignment of the steering wheel, the neutral transmission switch not being hooked up, and the installation of the air conditioning unit, however, these parts were not supplied to Mr. Plankenhorn for repairing. Furthermore, Mr. Browneller never addressed any of the defects in the specified parts during the six years the repairs were being done and rather became apparent when he noticed the waves in the paint. Mr. Plankenhorn did not disagree that the paint was uneven due to the surface of the car's body, but it was his understanding that he was instructed to make the car look presentable, which he did. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Mr. Plankenhorn filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition. Afterwards, Mr. Browneller filed a claim against Mr. Plankenhorn in the case for $7,000 which he claims is the amount a typical body shop would charge to correct the problems alleged in this case. 

ISSUE(S): Whether Mr.Browneller’s claim for $7,000 should be allowed per 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

HOLDING: Mr. Browneller’s claim for $7,000 should not be allowed per 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

REASONING: For this arrangement to be a legally binding contract, both Mr. Browneller and Mr. Plankenhorn would have to consent and communicate with each other clearly defined terms and conditions to be placed into the contract before accepting the contract. The language Mr. Browneller used when stating his condition for the car was “damn good job.” This language is subjective and is not well defined enough to be used as a terms and conditions statement in a contract. Therefore, the court ruled that there is no contract between the two parties and therefore no breach of contract.

JUDGMENT: The court sustained Mr. Plankenhorn’s objection to Proof of Claim and disallowed Mr. Browneller’s claim.