MILLER v TITECA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-229 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 JOHN MILLER, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. JOHN TITECA, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and for the County of Sweet Grass. Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J. Brian Tierney, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Paulson and Tulley, Big Timber, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 5, 1981 Decided: June 1, 1.981 I * Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f and r e s p o n d e n t , John M i l l e r , b u y e r , b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o r e c o v e r damages c a u s e d by t h e s e l l e r ' s b r e a c h of a c a t t l e - s a l e s c o n t r a c t . A n o n j u r y t r i a l was h e l d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Sweetg r a s s County, t h e Honorable J a c k Shanstrom p r e s i d i n g . Seller and d e f e n d a n t , John T i t e c a , now a p p e a l s from t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e buyer i n t h e amount of $6,492.50. The s e l l e r p r e s e n t s n i n e s e p a r a t e i s s u e s f o r review: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t b a r r i n g maintenance 1. o f t h e b u y e r ' s a c t i o n by r e a s o n of t h e f i c t i t i o u s name statutes? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t r u l i n g upon and g r a n t i n g t h e s e l l e r ' s motion f o r summary judgment f o r t h e r e a son t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t d a t e d J u l y 2 0 , 1978, was v o i d a s a m a t t e r of law? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n n o t making f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s upon t h e i s s u e of t h e b u y e r ' s r e l i a n c e and r i g h t t o r e l y upon t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978, a s a l l e g e d i n t h e complaint? 4. Were t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s made by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e i s s u e s of m u t u a l i t y of o b l i g a t i o n and v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978? 5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n t h e f i n d i n g s and con- c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i s s u e of e x c u s e of performance by the seller? 6. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n t h e f i n d i n g s and con- c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i s s u e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y of performance by t h e S e l l e r ? 7. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t e n t e r i n g f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o excuse of performance by r e a s o n of t h e a c t i o n s and r e j e c t i o n of t h e buyer a f t e r t h e s e l l e r ' s f i n a l offers? 8. s id t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u - s i o n s as t o t h e measure of damages based upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t ? 9. id t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e buyer? W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on a l l i s s u e s e x c e p t no. 9 a s t o a t t o r n e y f e e s ; we r e v e r s e on t h a t i s s u e . T h e - s e l l e r and buyer e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t on J u l y 20, 1978, f o r t h e s a l e of 80 head of mixed c a l v e s . The s a l e p r i c e was 67 c e n t s p e r pound f o r 45 c h o i c e s t e e r c a l v e s and 60 c e n t s p e r pound f o r 35 c h o i c e h e i f e r c a l v e s , which p r i c e s were t h e t h e n - p r e v a i l i n g m a r k e t p r i c e s . The c o n t r a c t c a l l e d f o r t h e s e l l e r t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s on o r b e f o r e t h e t e n t h t o f i f t e e n t h of November 1978, w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e c a l v e s were t o be weaned on hay and o a t s f o r a t l e a s t 45 days p r i o r t o delivery. The s e l l e r e x e c u t e d t h e c o n t r a c t by and f o r h i m s e l f , even though t i t l e t o t h e c a l v e s was h e l d by h i s w i f e a l o n e . The buyer e x e c u t e d t h e c o n t r a c t by and t h r o u g h h i s a g e n t , who s i g n e d "J. Miller L i v e s t o c k Co., by E a r l ~ u t l e r " . The a g e n t gave t h e s e l l e r a check f o r $2,000 a s downpayment a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n . There i s c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y a s t o whether t h e a g e n t was t o l d a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n t h a t t h e s e l l e r would n o t c a s h t h e check and t h a t t h e c a l v e s w e r e i n f a c t owned by t h e s e l l e r ' s w i f e . The a g e n t was t o l d t h a t t h e c a l v e s were l o c a t e d a t t h e s e l l e r ' s v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s i n P a r k , Golden V a l l e y and Wheatland c o u n t i e s . Three weeks a f t e r e x e c u t i o n , on August 1 4 , 1978, t h e s e l l e r informed t h e a g e n t t h a t p e r s o n a l problems had a r i s e n , and t h e s e l l e r asked t h e a g e n t t o o b t a i n r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s . The a g e n t r e p l i e d t h a t h e c o u l d a c q u i r e r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s . S i x weeks a f t e r t e l l i n g t h e a g e n t of h i s problems, on September 28, 1978, t h e s e l l e r phoned t h e buyer h i m s e l f and informed t h e buyer t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d be made u n t i l a f ter J a n u a r y 1, 197 9, and t h a t t h e a g e n t had i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s c o u l d be o b t a i n e d . The b u y e r , i n r e s p o n s e , informed t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e c a l v e s had a l r e a d y been s o l d by t h e buyer t o a f e e d e r i n Minnesota. On October 1 6 , 1978, t h e s e l l e r m e t t h e b u y e r ' s a g e n t i n B i l l i n g s , and a g a i n a d v i s e d him of t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of d e l i v e r y u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1. The s e l l e r asked t h e a g e n t whether r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s had been o b t a i n e d . The a g e n t r e p l i e d t h a t he would a c q u i r e them t h a t same day. Replacement c a l v e s w e r e a c q u i r e d , s o t h a t buyer w a s a b l e t o f u l f i l l h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e f e e d e r i n Minnesota. The day a f t e r t h e meeting i n B i l l i n g s , on October 1 7 , t h e buyer e n t e r e d i n t o a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e c a l v e s which he was buying from t h e s e l l e r . T h a t second c o n t r a c t was made w i t h a F r e d Schwartz, who t h e s e l l e r c l a i m s was a b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r of t h e buyer. The buyer s e n t t h e s e l l e r a l e t t e r on October 29, warning t h e s e l l e r o f t h e need t o comply w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t , and e x t e n d i n g t h e d a t e of d e l i v e r y by one month, t o December 15. Heavy snow f e l l on November 8. The n e x t day, November 9, t h e s e l l e r r e t u r n e d t h e uncashed $2,000 check t o t h e a g e n t , which check had been g i v e n a s downpayment. In a l e t t e r accompanying t h e c h e c k , t h e s e l l e r s t a t e d t h a t del i v e r y was i m p o s s i b l e , and r e q u e s t e d more t i m e , On November 1 3 , t h e buyer c a l l e d t h e s e l l e r and demanded d e l i v e r y by December 1 5 . The s e l l e r r e p l i e d that delivery by t h a t d a t e would b e i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e bad w e a t h e r . The s e l l e r informed t h e buyer t h a t t h e c a l v e s were l o c a t e d a t t h e s e l l e r ' s v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s , r e q u i r i n g a 160-mile round t r i p t o f e e d them. The buyer s t a t e d t h a t he would r e f u s e t o t a k e d e l i v e r y a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, b e c a u s e he wound up h i s b u s i n e s s a t t h e end of t h e y e a r and b e c a u s e t h e c a l v e s would be s o heavy by t h e n a s t o be c o n s i d e r e d y e a r l i n g s . On November 1 7 , t h e s e l l e r informed t h e b u y e r ' s a t t o r n e y t h a t d e l i v e r y would be unZikely by December 1 5 , due t o t h e c a l v e s ' poor c o n d i t i o n and t o t h e bad w e a t h e r . On November 1 8 , t h e s e l l e r s t a t e d t o t h e b u y e r ' s a t t o r n e y by phone t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d be made u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, b e c a u s e of t h e p e r i o d of t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r weaning and weight gain. The buyer f i l e d s u i t on December 8 , p r a y i n g f o r s p e c i f i c performance o r f o r damages i n t h e e v e n t t h e s e l l e r f a i l e d t o d e l i v e r by December 15. The s e l l e r h i r e d p e r s o n s t o plow h i s r a n c h r o a d , and a f t e r two days of plowing was a b l e t o t r u c k o u t some c a l v e s . E i g h t e e n of t h e c a l v e s w e r e s o l d i n a n unweaned c o n d i t i o n on December 1 5 i n B i l l i n g s . The remaining 72 c a l v e s w e r e weaned and g r a i n f e d f o r 45 d a y s , and w e r e s o l d i n B i l l i n g s o v e r f o u r s e p a r a t e d a t e s i n J a n u a r y and F e b r u a r y 1979, f o r p r i c e s of up t o $1 p e r pound. A l l money was p a i d t o t h e s e l l e r ' s w i f e , t h e owner of r e c o r d . The s e l l e r f i l e d a motion t o j o i n a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y and a motion t o d i s m i s s on J a n u a r y 18. The " i n d i s - p e n s a b l e p a r t y " was a p p a r e n t l y t h e b u y e r ' s a g e n t . o n t h e motion was h e l d on F e b r u a r y 1. ~earing No r u l i n g was made. On F e b r u a r y 9 t h e s e l l e r f i l e d h i s answer, a f f i r m a t i v e l y a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e s u i t was b a r r e d b e c a u s e of t h e b u y e r ' s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e Montana f i c t i t i o u s name r e g i s t r a t i o n statutes. On August 6 , 1979, t h e s e l l e r moved f o r summary judgment, based upon a l l e g e d v o i d n e s s of t h e c o n t r a c t due t o t h e s e l l e r ' s n o t owning t h e c a l v e s . A h e a r i n g was h e l d b u t no r u l i n g w a s made. The s e l l e r f i l e d a n o t h e r motion f o r summary judgment on March 25, 1980, based upon a n a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . N h e a r i n g was e v e r h e l d . o Nonjury t r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 3 and 1 5 , 1980. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e buyer i n t h e amount of $6,492.50, t o g e t h e r w i t h c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . The s e l l e r a p p e a l s . 1. FICTITIOUS NAME The a p p e l l a n t , s e l l e r , a l l e g e d , a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n h i s answer, t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s a c t i o n i s b a r r e d f o r f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r t h e f i c t i t i o u s name "J. M i l l e r L i v e s t o c k Co.", a s r e q u i r e d by former s e c t i o n 30-13-111, MCA, 1978, i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h i s c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d ( J u l y 2 0 , 1978) b u t s i n c e r e p e a l e d (Sec. 1 8 , Ch. 260, L a w s of Montana, 1979). The former s t a t u t e was q u i t e o l d , and had been c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d s e v e r a l t i m e s . Generally, t h i s Court h e l d t h a t i f a b u s i n e s s name f a i r l y d i s c l o s e d t h e t r u e names of a l l p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e n no compliance w i t h t h e s t a t u t e was n e c e s s a r y ; and, t h a t t h e d u t y w a s on t h e defendant a s s e r t i n g t h e bar t o a f f i r m a t i v e l y prove l a c k of compliance. Canonica v . S t . George ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 64 Mont. 205, 206, 208 P . 484, 489, 143 P . 200, 607, 608; C r o f t v . Bain ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 49 Mont. 960, 962. c a r r y h i s burden of p r o o f . The s e l l e r h a s p l a i n l y f a i l e d t o Although he r e f e r s t o t h e a g e n t and t h e e a s t e r n f e e d e r a s b u y e r ' s " p a r t n e r s " t h r o u g h o u t t h e p l e a d i n g s , t r a n s c r i p t and b r i e f , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t anyone b e s i d e s John 0 . M i l l e r h a s any ~t i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e b u s i n e s s "J. M i l l e r L i v e s t o c k c o . " n o t enough f o r t h e s e l l e r t o merely c l a i m t h a t h e i s w i t h o u t knowledge o r t h a t he h a s r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t a t u s of t h e b u s i n e s s . C r o f t v . Bain, s u p r a . The b u s i n e s s name h e r e f a i r l y d i s c l o s e s t h e name of t h e p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d i n the business. Because t h e s e l l e r f a i l e d t o p r o v e h i s a l l e g a - t i o n s , any e r r o r s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n f a i l i n g t o r u l e upon h i s motions were h a r m l e s s , a s t h e motions s h o u l d have been d e n i e d . 2 . WHETHER T E CONTRACT I S V O I D H T h e s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978, i s v o i d due t o t h e f a c t t h a t he d i d n o t own t h e c a l v e s a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h e c o n t r a c t i s wholly i m p o s s i b l e and u n l a w f u l a s p r o s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 28-2-603, MCA. The m e r e f a c t t h a t a p a r t y c o n t r a c t s t o s e l l something he d o e s n o t own d o e s n o t r a i s e t h e d e f e n s e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y . B a r r e t t v. Ballard (1980), 37 St.Rep. 2038, 2 0 4 1 . Mont. , 622 P.2d 180, 184, The burden of p r o v i n g i m p o s s i b i l i t y rests on t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e d e f e n s e ; such p a r t y must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he took v i r t u a l l y e v e r y a c t i o n w i t h i n h i s powers t o perform h i s d u t i e s under t h e c o n t r a c t . Zepp ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 358, 365-366, Smith v. 567 P.2d 923, 927. The s e l l e r o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e a s t o why i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r him t o o b t a i n h i s w i f e ' s c o n s e n t t o t h e s a l e o r t o buy h e r out. "The o b j e c t of a c o n t r a c t must be l a w f u l when t h e con- t r a c t i s made and p o s s i b l e t o be performed." . . . by S e c t i o n 28-2-602, t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t i s MCA. The s e l l e r h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r him t o o b t a i n t h e calves f o r delivery. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e upon t h e s e l l e r ' s motion f o r summary judgment on t h i s ground i s h a r m l e s s because i t s h o u l d have been d e n i e d . 3. BUYER'S R I G H T TO RELY The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s c o m p l a i n t s o u g h t damages due t o t h e b u y e r ' s d e t r i m e n t a l r e l i a n c e upon t h e c o n t r a c t , i n t h a t t h e buyer had o b l i g a t e d h i m s e l f t o r e s e l l t h e c a l v e s t o a n e a s t e r n f e e d e r , which o b l i g a t i o n t h e buyer i s now u n a b l e t o f u l f i l l and f o r which t h e buyer i s l i a b l e . The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t , based upon t h e b u y e r ' s own p l e a d i n g s , t h e buyer c a n n o t r e c o v e r because he c o u l d - d e t r i m e n t a l l y not r e l y on t h e c o n t r a c t ; t h e s e l l e r had informed t h e buyer on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e s e l l e r would n o t be a b l e t o f u l f i l l the contract. T h i s argument i s b e s i d e t h e p o i n t . Damages were u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d on t h e s i m p l e b a s i s of d i f f e r e n c e between m a r k e t p r i c e s on t h e d a t e of d e l i v e r y and t h e d a t e of e x e c u t i o n , a s p r o v i d e d by Montana's Uniform Comm e r c i a l Code ( s e c t i o n 30-2-713, MCA) . I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s method of r e s o l v i n g damages d i d n o t conform p r e c i s e l y w i t h t h e b u y e r ' s c o m p l a i n t , b u t the c o u r t ' s a c t i o n w a s proper. A l l p l e a d i n g s s h a l l be s o construed a s t o do s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . Rule 8 ( f ) , 3I.R.Civ.P. The c o u r t s s h o u l d " l o o k t o t h e c l a i m a s a whole, t o the s u b j e c t w i t h which i t d e a l s , t o t h e r e a s o n and s p i r i t of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n a s c e r t a i n i n g i t s r e a l purpose. I f such purpose c a n r e a s o n a b l y be s a i d t o b e w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d , t h a t p u r p o s e should be honored." Hollow Ranch v. C o l l i n s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 406 P.2d 365, 368. Hidden 321, 325, 326, The purpose and s p i r i t behind t h e b u y e r ' s c o m p l a i n t i s t o r e c o v e r f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , and damages based upon t h e changes i n market p r i c e s a r e w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of t h e c o m p l a i n t . 4: L C O CONSIDERATION AND LACK O MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION AK F F The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n and m u t u a l i t y of o b l i g a t i o n a r e e s s e n t i a l t o a c o n t r a c t , t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s f a i l t o s e t f o r t h t h e s e e l e m e n t s , t h a t t h e buyer h a s s u f f e r e d no l e g a l d e t r i m e n t i n t h e n a t u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t h i s l a t e r c o n t r a c t f o r r e s a l e of t h e c a l v e s t o a n e a s t e r n f e e d e r h a s n o t been e n f o r c e d by t h e f e e d e r . The s e l l e r f a i l s t o recog- n i z e t h a t mutual p r o m i s e s a r e v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The buyer promised t o pay t h e s e l l e r a c e r t a i n amount i n r e t u r n f o r t h e s e l l e r ' s promise t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s on a c e r t a i n d a t e i n a c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n . The buyer d e l i v e r e d a $2,000 check as downpayment on h i s promise. Mutual p r o m i s e s a l o n e a r e enough t o c o n s t i t u t e v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 801, MCA; s e e 1 7 C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s , SS97, 98. S e c t i o n 28-2In addition, t h e buyer gave t h e check a s downpayment, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e s e l l e r ' s l a t e r r e t u r n of t h a t check. These f a c t s a r e u n d i s - p u t e d , and c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court ' s conclusions. 5: EXCUSE O PERFORMANCE F The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e shows h e i n t e n d e d t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s by t h e extended d a t e of December 1 5 , b u t was excused from performance b e c a u s e of t h e bad w e a t h e r . The t r i a l c o u r t , however, chose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e l l e r d i d n o t s o i n t e n d , which b e l i e f i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of i s s u e no. 6 , below. The f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and w i l l n o t be s e t aside. 6: Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. IMPOSSIBILITY O PERFORMANCE F The s e l l e r a s s e r t s a n o t h e r d e f e n s e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y due t o h a r s h weather c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e t i m e s e t f o r d e l i v e r y . The t r i a l c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y found t h e s e l l e r d i d n o t i n t e n d t o d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 i n any c a s e . s u p p o r t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : Such a f i n d i n g i s t h e s e l l e r had been t e l l i n g t h e buyer s i n c e September 28 t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d - b e made u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1; t h e s e l l e r had been i n t i m a t i n g a n u n w i l l i n g n e s s o r i n a b i l i t y t o comply w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t s i n c e a t l e a s t August 1 4 ; a n d , t h e s e l l e r , i n o r d e r t o wean t h e cows f o r t h e a g r e e d 45-day p e r i o d , would have had t o s t a r t weaninq by O c t o b e r 31 i n o r d e r t o d e l i v e r by December 15. O c t o b e r 31 was n i n e d a y s b e f o r e t h e snow. There i s adequate evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusions. 7: EXCUSE O PERFORMANCE BY REASON OF REJECTION F The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e buyer w r o n g f u l l y r e j e c t e d d e l i v e r y a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 and such r e j e c t i o n made p e r f o r m a n c e i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e b u y e r ' s h i n d r a n c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e s e l l e r had n e v e r d e l i v e r e d a n y c a l v e s ( f i n d i n g no. 1 3 ) , and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e s e l l e r t o make even p a r t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e amounted t o a c o m p l e t e b r e a c h of t h e c o n t r a c t . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i - dence t h a t t h e seller f a i l e d t o t e n d e r d e l i v e r y a f t e r January 1; t h a t a l l h e d i d was s t a t e on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h a t h e would b e u n a b l e t o d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1; and t h a t t h e b u y e r a l w a y s demanded d e l i v e r y by t h e a g r e e d d a t e . After J a n u a r y 1 t h e s e l l e r took t h e c a l v e s t o B i l l i n g s and s o l d them a t a n i n c r e a s e d p r i c e w i t h o u t o f f e r i n g them t o t h e buyer. 8: The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . D M GS A A E The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e b u y e r n e v e r p u r c h a s e d r e p l a c e - ment c a l v e s i n o r d e r t o f u l f i l l h i s c o n t r a c t f o r r e s a l e t o t h e e a s t e r n f e e d e r ; a s a consequence, t h e f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages must be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . But damages w e r e c a l c u - l a t e d on t h e b a s i s of change i n m a r k e t p r i c e a l o n e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 30-2-713, MCA. The b u y e r ' s c a p a c i t y t o f u l f i l l h i s own c o n t r a c t f o r resale i s n o t a n i s s u e h e r e . 9: ATTORNEY FEES The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e buyer i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o attorney fees. The buyer a d m i t s t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s can o n l y be g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o e x p r e s s s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n , b u t a r g u e s t h a t where a p a r t y a c t s i n bad f a i t h d u r i n g l i t i g a t i o n and d i s c o v e r y , a t t o r n e y f e e s s h o u l d be awarded t o cover t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s u n n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e bad f a i t h . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make any f i n d i n g s of bad f a i t h . I n h i s c o m p l a i n t t h e buyer s o u g h t damages f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . A s s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Masonovich v . School D i s t r i c t No. 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 138, 1 4 1 , " ' G e n e r a l l y , t h e r e c a n be no r e c o v e r y a s damages of t h e expenses of l i t i g a t i o n and a t t o r n e y f e e s u n l e s s a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t . ' " A s t h e r e i s no c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s c a s e , a t t o r n e y f e e s may n o t be awarded. CONCLUSION W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x c e p t as t o attorney fees. W concur: e W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment on t h a t i s s u e .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.