Trial Testimony – Mark Bennett Direct Exam
Trial Testimony – Mark Bennett Direct Exam
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case Name: Summit Signs & Graphics, LLC v. Pinnacle Retail Solutions, Inc.
Case No.: [Insert Case Number]
Trial Testimony of: Mark Bennett
Date: [Insert Date]
Location: Courtroom [Number]
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MARK BENNETT
BY [Attorney for Summit]:
Q. Please state your name for the record.
A. My name is Mark Bennett.
Q. What is your current occupation?
A. I am the owner and CEO of Summit Signs & Graphics, LLC.
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. I founded Summit in 2010 and have led the company for the past 14 years.
Q. Could you briefly describe Summit Signs & Graphics and what it does?
A. Certainly. Summit is a full-service signage company that specializes in custom signage design, manufacturing, and installation. We work with businesses of all sizes, from small retailers to national chains, helping them establish their brand identity through high-quality signage.
Q. Tell us a little about your background. What is your educational and professional experience?
A. I earned my Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from [University] and later obtained my MBA from [University], focusing on operations and supply chain management. Before starting Summit, I worked for five years as a project manager for a national signage company, overseeing major commercial projects.
Q. How did Summit become involved with Pinnacle Retail Solutions?
A. In late 2023, Pinnacle reached out to us regarding a signage project for their client, BrightMart. They were looking for a vendor to design, manufacture, and install signage for six BrightMart locations as part of a rebranding initiative.
Q. Who was your primary point of contact at Pinnacle?
A. Kevin Diaz, the CEO of Pinnacle Retail Solutions.
Q. Did Summit and Pinnacle enter into a formal agreement for this project?
A. Yes, we signed a contract on January 15, 2024. The contract outlined the scope of work, the payment schedule, and the deadline for completion.
Q. What were the key terms of the contract?
A. The contract required Summit to produce and install custom signage at six BrightMart locations. Payment was structured in three installments—30% upon signing, 40% upon delivery, and 30% upon completion. The contract also required installation to be completed by March 31, 2024, to align with BrightMart’s grand reopening.
Q. Did Summit complete the project by March 31, 2024?
A. No, unfortunately, we encountered supply chain disruptions that delayed material procurement. However, we completed the installation as quickly as possible, finishing on April 15, 2024.
Q. When did Summit first notify Pinnacle about the delay?
A. In mid-February, when we saw that our suppliers were experiencing backlogs, we informed Ms. Diaz that there was a risk we wouldn’t meet the March 31 deadline. We kept her updated regularly.
Q. How did Pinnacle respond?
A. At first, they acknowledged the issue and didn’t express any major concerns. They only started to become upset in late March, when they realized the delay was inevitable.
Q. Did Summit take any actions to mitigate the delays?
A. Yes. We worked with alternative suppliers, paid for expedited shipping, and reallocated internal resources to speed up production and installation. We prioritized Pinnacle’s project over other clients’ work to get it done as quickly as possible.
Q. Once the project was completed, did Pinnacle pay the final installment?
A. No. Pinnacle withheld the last $36,000 payment, claiming that the signage did not conform to the agreed-upon specifications and that the delay caused financial harm to them.
Q. Did BrightMart provide specific feedback about the signage?
A. Yes, but I strongly disagree with their claims. The signage matched the specifications provided by Pinnacle. However, during the project, Pinnacle made last-minute verbal modifications, and we did our best to accommodate them.
Q. Were these modifications formally documented?
A. Not all of them. Some were sent via email, but many were communicated verbally.
Q. Did Summit ever ask Pinnacle to confirm these modifications in writing?
A. Yes, multiple times. We repeatedly requested written confirmations, but Pinnacle insisted that the changes were minor and didn’t need documentation.
Q. How has Pinnacle’s failure to pay affected Summit?
A. It has put a significant strain on our cash flow. We expected that final payment to cover material costs and labor expenses. Additionally, prioritizing Pinnacle’s project over others resulted in approximately $25,000 in lost business.
Q. If Pinnacle had communicated their concerns earlier, do you think the dispute could have been avoided?
A. Absolutely. If they had clearly outlined their expectations and put all modifications in writing, we could have ensured full alignment. Instead, they waited until after the project was completed to raise objections.
Q. In your opinion, did Summit fulfill its contractual obligations?
A. Yes. We did everything within our power to meet the deadline, we delivered high-quality signage that met the agreed specifications, and we maintained good faith communication throughout.
Q. What would you like the jury to understand about this case?
A. Summit acted in good faith from the beginning. We encountered unavoidable delays, which we communicated early, and we worked tirelessly to deliver a product that met expectations. Pinnacle is now using those delays as an excuse to withhold payment, despite our efforts and the quality of our work.
Attorney: No further questions, Your Honor.
Inconsistent Statements:
- Deposition Testimony: Bennett stated that he informed Pinnacle about the risk of delay in early March.
- Trial Testimony: He now claims he first informed Pinnacle in mid-February, making it seem like they had more advance notice.
- Deposition Testimony: Bennett admitted that Summit did not formally request written confirmation for verbal changes.
- Trial Testimony: He states that Summit repeatedly requested written confirmations but was ignore