District Court orders bakery equipment returned and $23,000 refunded, dismisses damages

The District Court ordered Larkspur Oven LLC to return its bakery equipment and Copper Finch Installations LLC to refund $23,000, while holding Larkspur liable for $1,000 in installation fees only. Presiding judge Johnny signed the judgment on October 10, 2026, dismissing Larkspur’s claim for $11,600 in damages and its request for court costs.

Larkspur had sought compensation for substitute equipment rental, corrective work and claimed lost net profit, as well as a determination that it could withhold the remaining $24,000 pending correction. The dispute turned on whether delivery and a signed acknowledgment established completion, or whether payment still depended on a successful operating demonstration.

Johnny gave two express reasons for the outcome: Larkspur had not paid the second half of the agreement, requiring it to return the equipment; and it had an electrical problem that an electrician came to fix, leading to dismissal of all other damages, including court costs.

The hearing exposed uncertainty about whether the equipment had been successfully tested. Copper Finch acknowledged that the completion form’s operating-test section was blank and said it could not confirm that the equipment had operated successfully as a complete system. Its crew had left before the electrician returned.

Larkspur said the electrician completed a circuit adjustment at 4:20 p.m. on September 12, after the installation crew departed. It could not establish precisely when substitute equipment was installed relative to that work. Although Larkspur accepted that it could not rule out an electrical issue, it disputed that electricity explained every problem.

The judgment does not explain how the $1,000 installation fee was calculated. Asked during the hearing to separate equipment costs from delivery and installation, Copper Finch said the agreement contained no separate fee and that it could not provide a reliable figure.

Larkspur said it paid a $24,000 deposit for a mixer, dough divider and proofing cabinet, with the balance due after a successful demonstration. It alleged that the divider repeatedly stopped and the cabinet could not be used safely. Its signature, it maintained, acknowledged delivery rather than successful testing.

Copper Finch argued that timely delivery depended on site readiness, not an unconditional guarantee for the bakery’s opening. It attributed the divider’s stoppages to inadequate electrical supply and said Larkspur had changed the layout and requested a different divider after procurement began.

Copper Finch also said it offered later troubleshooting, which Larkspur declined before hiring another installer. It sought dismissal or reduction of damages and a finding that completion triggered the outstanding payment. Larkspur acknowledged retaining the equipment but maintained that retention did not mean it accepted the equipment as working.

The installation was intended to precede Larkspur’s September 15, 2025 opening. Larkspur understood September 12 delivery to be guaranteed; Copper Finch disputed that interpretation and relied on site-readiness conditions.

The judgment resolves the dispute through equipment return, a refund and a limited installation charge. It does not expressly decide what legal effect the signed completion form had, whether a successful demonstration occurred, or how the electrical issue related to the separate allegation that the proofing cabinet was unsafe.