Case Title: EQUITY COOPERATIVE ASSN v BECHTOL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
id09 N o . T36-36- I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA EQUITY COOPEIiATIVE ASSOCIATION, A M o n t a n a C o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , JOHN F. BECHTOLD, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e A l f r e d B. C o a t e , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : John R. C a r r argued, M i l e s C i t y , Plontana For R e s p o n d e n t : G e n e H u n t l e y argued, B a k e r , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : June 7 , 1 9 7 7 D e c i d e d : dMLIl 1977 F i l e d : JuL 11 1 9 7 7 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f Equity Cooperative Association appeals from a summary judgment i n a complaint f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Fallon County, f o r a breach of c o n t r a c t t o d e l i v e r g r a i n . The s o l e i s s u e on appeal is whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment were proper i n awarding summary judgment t o defendant John F. Bechtold. O n October 31, 1972 a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o between Equity Cooperative Association, purchaser, and John F. Bechtold, s e l l e r , f o r 50,200 bushels of wheat. The c o n t r a c t was signed i n two p a r t s , both signed on t h e same day and covered t h e same wheat. The first c o n t r a c t , designated "Contract of S a l e o f Grain No. 4-0 60644" provided f o r an advance of $5,000 on wheat t o be d e l i v e r e d l a t e r and payable a f t e r October 1973. Later, on t h e same day, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o t h e second c o n t r a c t , a more s p e c i f i c one, providing f o r t h e s a l e of 50,200 bushels of wheat a t a p r i c e of $1.65 per bushel, except f o r 14,400 bushels which were t o be purchased a t $1.63 per bushel, p l u s 4,742 bushels which r e q u i r e d a p r o t e i n check b e f o r e determining t h e a c t u a l p r i c e . This c o n t r a c t was designated No. 4-0 60660. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e advance made t o Bechtold of $5,000 on October 31, 1972, a n o t h e r i n t h e same amount of $5,000 was made on December 21, 1972, a t t h e r e q u e s t of Bechtold. I n January 1973, Bechtold d e l i v e r e d t o t h e Equity e l e v a t o r 12,700 bushels of wheat. Equity paid Bechtold, deducting t h e $10,000 advance, and he accepted and cashed a n e t check i n t h e amount of $10,387.55. A l l t h e wheat was paid f o r a t a p r i c e of $1.63 per b u s h e l . There is c o n f l i c t i n t h e statements of Bechtold and Novak, E q u i t y ' s manager, on whether Bechtold o b j e c t e d t o t h e $1.63 p r i c e . 5 y b i . t ~ 3ldirris ally .dii'I?el)er~ce i r l 2rice was t o be adjusted upon ;ampletion of the c o n t r a c t . Bechtold delivered wheat t o Squity over a four month ,~erjiod, being paid each time. The l a s t d e l i v e r y was made on \iiay 5, 1973 when he was paid $4,175.24. A l l t o l d some 15,069 bushels were delivered and Equity sought s p e c i f i c performance 31' the contract seeking the d e l i v e r y of 35,161 bushels of grain ' ~ r ; i.n the a l t e r n a t i v e damages f o r breach of contract i n the dmount of $5.00 per bushel or $175,805. Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. provides t h a t summary judgment is proper i f : "* * * the pleadings, depositions, answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h a t there i s no genuine issue a s t o any material f a c t and t h a t the moving party i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a matter of l a w * * *." See: Harland v. Anderson, Mont . , 548 P.2d 613, 33 St.Rep. 363. Here the record i s r e p l e t e wi.th f a c t questions. The d l s t r i c t zourt erred i n granting summary judgment. The d i s t r i c t court does not function t o adjudicate genuine i-ssues of f a c t on a motion f o r summary judgment cause--it merely determines whether such issues e x i s t . Thus the party opposing the motion, Equity, w i l l be indulged t o the extent of a l l i-nferences which may be reasonably drawn. Mally v. Asanovich, 149 Mont. 99, Some of the genuine f a c t issues r a i s e d here a r e these questions : 1. Whether under the contract t h e r e was t o be an adjustment i n the price paid of $1.63 and $1.65 and the number 01' bushels a t those prices? 2 . Was there a breach by Bechtoldfs f a i l u r e t o d e l i v e r ? . Did Bechtold f a i l t o d e l i v e r a f t e r being requested 50 lo sd Sy 3quity! ' 4 . W a s Bechtolcl's i'ai l u r e !;o ~~erl'orm t h e contraci; due co g r e a t i n c r e a s e i n t h e p r i c e of g r a i n - - a f t e r he s i g n e d t h e 2 drl t r a c t ? 5. Why d i d he n o t d e l i v e r ? L'nei;e Are 3. few of t h e f a c t s t h a t must be answered by a jury t;~lia 1 . Judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e r.emailileJ f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Chief J u s t i c e