Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02068/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce
Appellee
Love Enterprises, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

IN THE 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC 1 8 1990 

GREATER CHEYENNE CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE, a Wyoming non-profit 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

LOVE ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-2068 

(D.C. No. C84-0504 K) 

(D. Wyoming) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges 

This is a diversity declaratory judgment action brought by 

the Greater Cheyenne, Wyoming, Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), the 

principal sponsor of the Cheyenne Frontier Days celebration. The 

suit was against Love Enterprises, Inc. (Love), a Missouri 

corporation which for many years contracted with the Chamber to 

provide food and carnival concessions at the Cheyenne Frontier 

Days. The controversy concerns contract issues and disputes over 

ownership of personal property. 

I 

In December 1984 the Chamber advised Love that it would not 

enter into a contract with Love for the concessions for the 1985 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 1 
- Frontier Days celebration, scheduled for July 19 through July 28, 

1985. Love claimed a contractual right to renewal for the 1985 

concessions contract. The Chamber then filed this declaratory 

judgment action seeking a declaration on the legal rights of the 

parties and a determination of ownership to numerous items of 

property, equipment and fixtures which were in dispute. Love 

averred it was unable to obtain a contract with a fair comparable 

to that of the Frontier Days Celebration for the last two weeks of 

July 1985. 

In response to issues raised by the complaint and amended 

complaint of the Chamber, Love asserted several claims by its 

answer and counterclaim and an amended answer and counterclaim: 

Count I for breach of an alleged express oral agreement to renew 

the carnival and concession contracts each year so long as Love 

was participating in an improvement project on the fairgrounds; 

Count II for breach of an implied contract to renew Love's 

contract each year during such participation in improvements on 

the fairgrounds; Count III for breach of contract with damages 

for relief under a joint venture theory; and Count IV for damages 

of $22,698 paid by Love for paving and electrical improvements on 

the Chamber's premises on an unjust enrichment theory. 

Appellant's Docketing Statement at 2. 

The plaintiff Chamber later moved for a partial summary 

judgment, and discovery relating to the motion was had. The 

district judge granted the Chamber's motion, finding that there 

had been written contracts between the parties for the years 1982, 

1983 and 1984 for the concessions, but that none of these written 

contracts contained a promise that the Chamber would enter into a 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 2 
• concessions contract with Love for 1985. The court concluded that 

each contract related solely to the carnival and food concessions 

for the particular year covered and did not give defendant Love 

any right to concessions for the 1985 Frontier Days and that there 

was no written instrument for that year. 

The court held that under the Wyoming statute of frauds, Wyo. 

Stat.§ 1-23-105 (1988), the oral agreement alleged by defendant 

Love to give Love the right to the four years of contracts for 

1982 through 1985, if it existed, was a promise that by its terms 

could not be performed within one year. The alleged promise was 

therefore void and unenforceable under the statute of frauds since 

there was no written instrument providing evidence of such a 

promise. Partial summary judgment was accordingly granted to the 

plaintiff Chamber. 

The court subsequently held a hearing on the dispute 

concerning the ownership of property, equipment and fixtures and 

made special findings that some enumerated property and equipment 

was agreed to belong to the Chamber and some to Love. The court 

itself determined the ownership as to numerous items of property 

in dispute and entered its conclusions and judgment, some property 

being awarded to the Chamber and some to Love. The judgment, 

entered June 23, 1986, also ordered that defendant "take nothing 

by way of its counterclaim except as specifically provided 

herein." Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. 

Defendant Love has appealed from the partial summary judgment 

ruling and the June 23, 1986, judgment. Love's brief makes no 

claim of error in the determinations of the court as to the 

ownership of the disputed property. Love does, however, challenge 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 3 
the partial summary judgment ruling of the trial judge on its 

contractual rights and the rejection of all counts of its 

counterclaim, specifically presenting the following issues: 

(1) whether the partial summary judgment on the 

contract issues of the Chamber's declaratory judgment 

suit and Love's counterclaim for breach of contract and 

unjust enrichment should be reversed because a material 

issue of fact existed whether the parties had an 

enforceable oral contract for renewal of the contract 

for 1985; 

(2) whether the partial summary judgment should be 

reversed because a material issue of fact existed 

whether there was an implied contract; and 

(3) whether the partial summary judgment should be 

reversed because a material issue of fact existed as to 

whether the Chamber had been unjustly enriched. 

II 

There was evidence developed by discovery and presented in 

summary judgment materials of the following facts: 

Cheyenne Frontier Days is a celebration of Wyoming history 

and culture held during the summer months since 1897. Love, from 

the early 1950's, contracted with the Chamber to provide food and 

carnival concessions for the celebration. The parties had written 

contracts concerning these arrangements each year. The contracts 

were signed at different times from year to year; on at least one 

occasion, an agreement was signed after Love had arrived in 

Cheyenne to erect its carnival and food equipment for that 

summer's fair. These agreements were "executed usually shortly 

before the celebration each year." Appellant's Brief at 3. The 

written contracts covered the carnival and concession 

arrangements, but there was no provision in these contracts 

relating to their renewal. Id. at 3-4. 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 4 
The Frontier Days governing committee decided to improve 

concession services. The Chamber and Love agreed orally to share 

equally the cost of improvements to the East Building Food 

Services area. The agreement included an improvements financing 

schedule, with Love agreeing to pay half of the costs in five 

equal installments. The installment payments were made beginning 

in the summer of 1979 and continued through the summer of 1983. 

During that time Love paid a total of $8,500 for these East 

Building improvements. 

Improvements to the grandstand food areas were made under a 

similarly shared financing plan. Love agreed to pay half of the 

costs of these improvements, with its share of the costs to be 

paid in five equal installments of $4,094 each. These payments 

were made beginning in the summer of 1980 and continued through 

the summer of 1984, with Love paying a total of $20,470. 

Finally, Love agreed to share in the cost of financing 

electrical and paving improvements. These improvements were made 

to place electrical wiring underground and to pave areas of the 

fairgrounds in order to eliminate standing water problems. 

Cheyenne city officials had expressed concern about electrical 

hazards, noting in particular one incident involving electrical 

shock to two maintenance workers as justification for eliminating 

standing water problems on the fairgrounds. VII R. at 9-10. Love 

also agreed to pay half of these electrical and paving costs in 

four equal installments of $7,566, with the total amount to be 

paid by Love set at $30,264. A four-year payment schedule for 

Love was approved by the governing committee at its meeting on 

June 7, 1982, with the four year period to begin in the summer of 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 5 
f 1982 and to continue through the summer of 1985. VII R. at 13-15; 

V R. doc. 15 (minutes of the committee meeting) at 3. 

There was deposition testimony that these arrangements on 

improvement payments reflected a course of business dealings 

between the parties such that not all the agreements between the 

parties were covered by written contracts. III R. at 32-33; 

IV R. at 15; VII R. at 20-21; VIII R. at 9 (referring to "side 

agreements, that were not specifically written in the contract"). 

On one occasion Love guaranteed a loan to the Chamber for an 

amount of up to $25,000, with Love paying interest on the loan. V 

R. Ex. 11 at Exhibit "A". Love and the Chamber agreed that Love 

would store property on the fairgrounds for use at the following 

Frontier Days, with an inventory to be taken at the close of the 

annual Cheyenne Frontier Days. VI R. at 19. Love allowed other 

groups to use this stored equipment for other functions throughout 

the year. Id. at 20-21. Love normally paid much of the Cheyenne 

Frontier Days promotional advertising. IV R. at 14; III R. at 

18. 

As is detailed in Part III-B, infra, the Chamber submitted an 

affidavit by Mr. Garner, Chairman of the Cheyenne Frontier Days 

Committee for 1982, 1983 and 1984. It contradicted Love's claim 

or an oral agreement for renewal in 1985 of Love's carnival and 

concessions contract. It also pointed out the absence of any 

written obligation to renew the contract in 1985. 

We turn to the appellate contentions of Love. 

6 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 6 
t 

III 

A. 

Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues as 

to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment 

as to a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "By its very 

terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some 

alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an 

otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the 

requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. et al, 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 

(1985) (emphasis in original). "Only disputes over facts that 

might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will 

properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes 

that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Id. at 

248. 

In determining whether the district court properly granted 

partial summary judgment to the Chamber, we must view the case in 

the same manner as did the district court. We must examine the 

record to determine whether any issue of material fact pertinent 

to the district court's ruling remains, and, if not, whether the 

substantitve law was correctly applied. Florom v. Elliott 

Manufacturing, 867 F.2d 570, rehearing denied, 879 F.2d 801 (10th 

Cir. 1989). In doing so, we must view the record most favorably 

to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. R-G 

Denver Ltd. v. First City Holdings of Colorado, Inc., 789 F.2d 

1469 (10th Cir. 1986). Contract interpretation is a matter of law 

and thus is amenable to decision on summary judgment. Government 

Systems Advisors, Inc. v. United States, 847 F.2d 811, 812 n.1 

7 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 7 
• (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

B. 

We turn first to Love's position that it had a valid oral 

agreement with the Chamber for renewal of the carnival and 

concessions agreement in 1985, one not void under the Wyoming 

statute of frauds as the district court held. 

We must agree that the affidavits and materials submitted on 

the summary judgment motion demonstrate a genuine issue on the 

material factual assertion by Love that there was an oral 

agreement for Love to have a renewal of the carnival and 

concessions contract for 1985. The affidavit of E. V. Love states 

clearly that an agreement was made in conversations with Tom 

Powers, then Chairman of the Cheyenne Frontier Days Committee, 

that Love would undertake payment of one-half of the paving and 

electrical project costs over a four-year period beginning in 

1982, requiring Love to make a payment of $7,566 each year; that 

"it was clearly agreed and understood in the conversations with 

Tom Powers that Love's contract would be renewed each year during 

the term of this program." Love Affidavit at 1; I R. 48. In 

addition, the contracts had statements in their attachments 

relating to the payments. The 1984 carnival and concessions 

written contract covered numerous details of the agreement of the 

parties as to liability insurance, payments by Love, and the like. 

These details did not, as the parties agree, contain any written 

provision that Love would be entitled to a renewal of the carnival 

and concessions contract in 1985. However, Attachment C to the 

1984 contract did contain this stipulation, inter alia: 

"Love pays Committee for: 

8 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 8 
F. 7,566 payment on paving and electricity in new 

carnival area (third payment of four)." 

The proviso for the "third payment of four" we feel 

significant as support for Love's position that there was an 

agreement carrying through 1985 on the renewals of the carnival 

and concessions contract. It would seem only logical that the 

1985 renewal was intended or Love would have been obligated to 

make a substantial $7,566 payment for 1985 without being given the 

benefit of the carnival and concession contract for that year. 

Love's affidavit further says that there was no indication 

that he would not be allowed to perform the 1985 contract until 

late December 1984, and early January 1985, thus preventing him 

from renegotiating a contract with any other fair of that size and 

duration for the last two weeks in July of 1985. Love Affidavit 

at 2; IR. 48. Love's affidavit states that in reliance on the 

promise to renew the contracts, Love paid the total sum of $22,698 

during 1982, 1983 and 1984 from his own monies to the Committee in 

reliance on the promises made to him. Love Affidavit at 2; IR. 

48. 

On the other hand, there is an affidavit by Mr. Garner, 

Chairman of the Cheyenne Frontier Days Committee for 1982, 1983 

and 1984. It states that Garner met and negotiated the contracts 

with Love for those years; that the written contracts were 

similar for such years in that they did not provide for renewal; 

and that "at no time during the negotiations of the 1982, 1983 and 

1984 contracts was Eugene Love or any other representative of Love 

Enterprises, Inc., told that Love Enterprises, Inc. was in any way 

entitled to the carnival, the carnival concessions, or the food 

9 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 9 
I 

and refreshment concessions for any year except the particular 

year being negotiated." Garner Affidavit at 2; IR. 45. On at 

least one occasion during the time that Garner served as Chairman 

of the Concessions Committee, Love was specifically told that the 

Carnival Concessions Contract and the Food and Refreshment 

Contract would not necessarily be renewed for the period of the 

obligation undertaken by Love to pay for certain paving and 

electrical improvements on the Cheyenne Frontier Days Park; that 

there was never any agreement reached, or any promise made during 

negotiations of the contracts that they would be renewed for Love 

Enterprises. Love "has not paid its fourth installment payment of 

$7,566 for the paving and electrical improvements done upon the 

Cheyenne Frontier Days Park." Id. at 3. 

The opposing affidavits and papers of the Chamber and Love 

therefore were in conflict. Thus there was a genuine issue of 

material fact concerning Love's claim based on an oral agreement 

to renew the carnival and concessions contract in 1985. The 

remaining question is whether under the statute of frauds the 

Chamber was nevertheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

See Rule 56(c) Fed. R. Civ. P. This was the holding of the 

district court, applying§ 1-23-105, Wyoming Statutes Annotated, 

which provides in part: 

§ 1-23-105. AGREEMENTS VOID UNLESS IN WRITING: 

(a) In the following cases every agreement shall 

be void unless such agreement, or some note or 

memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by 

the party to be charged therewith: 

(i) Every agreement that by its terms is not 

to be performed within one (1) year from 

the making thereof. 

10 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 10 
Love makes several arguments that the statute does not apply. 

Among other things, Love says that the court or jury could find 

and infer from the facts Love's fidelity in paying improvement 

payments, as agreed, including the 1984 payment on the paving and 

electrical contract; that this was sufficient part performance of 

the contract to render the statute of frauds inapplicable. 

Appellant's Brief at 11, citing Butler v. McGee, 373 P.2d 595 

(Wyo. 1962). 

We must agree with Love that the summary judgment papers 

raise a genuine and material issue not only as to the alleged oral 

promise to renew, but also as to the part performance of Love 

being sufficient to avoid the statute of frauds. In Allen v. 

Allen, 550 P.2d 1137 (Wyo. 1976), the Wyoming Supreme Court stated 

that 

the part performance to take an oral agreement to convey 

real estate outside the statute of frauds must be 

substantial performance and of a sort that refusal to 

enforce the agreement would not only deny intended 

contract rights but cause an unjust and unconscionable 

injury. 

The Wyoming cases we cite are consistent with Thompson's 

conclusion that the doctrine of part performance taking 

a transaction away from the statute of frauds is well 

grounded in the law. 

550 P.2d at 1143 and n.7 (emphasis added). See also Crosby v. 

Strahan's Estate, 324 P.2d 492, 297 (Wyo. 1958); Butler v. McGee, 

373 P.2d 595, 597 (Wyo. 1962); Adams v. Taylor, 391 P.2d 837 

(Utah 1964) (acceptance of monthly payments for two years 

sufficient to take case out of statute of frauds). 

Here the circumstances support a viable theory for recovery 

based on substantial partial performance -- the payment of $22,698 

11 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 11 
by three payments for the ongoing paving and electrical work. 

Moreover, Love's affidavit made a showing that his company had no 

indication until December of 1984 and January of 1985 of not being 

permitted to carry on with the carnival and concessions contract 

in July 1985 -- a rejection at a time "preventing him from 

renegotiating a contract with any other fair of that size and 

duration for the last two weeks in July of 1985." Love Affidavit 

at 2; I R. 48. And the minutes of the Cheyenne Frontier Days 

Committee Meeting of June 7, 1982, reflect a report by Mr. 

Mathison of the estimated cost of $57,000 for the new carnival 

layout and electrical plan; that "the committee unanimously 

agreed to request E. V. Love to pay for half of the project over a 

four year period." IV R. Ex. 15 at 3. Love undertook his part of 

the obligation in 1982, and he made another $7,566 payment in 

1984, described in the written attachment to the 1984 agreement of 

the parties as his "(third payment of four)." 

It was a reasonable position, considering all these 

circumstances, that Love relied on the oral agreement to renew, 

which he claims, and that he was depending on the July 1985 

contract for a big part of his 1985 operations. At least, he 

presented such a showing of an "unjust and unconscionable injury," 

Allen v. Allen, supra at 1143, by denial of the 1985 contract that 

summary judgment should not have been entered rejecting his oral 

agreement claim on the statute of frauds grounds in view of Love's 

part performance. 

Furthermore, we need not elaborate more on Love's implied 

agreement theory because his showing, already discussed above, 

likewise made a summary disposition of that claim improper. See~ 

12 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 12 
J and M Cattle Co. v. Holler, 559 P.2d 1019, 1023 (Wyo. 1977) (it is 

necessary that we examine the complete relationship between 

parties and look at what they did and how they treated the 

arrangement between them); Restatement (Second) Contracts§ 223 

(1981) (course of dealing between parties to agreement is fairly 

to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for 

interpreting their expressions and other conduct; unless 

otherwise agreed, course of dealing between parties gives meaning 

to or supplements or qualifies their agreement); 5 S. Williston, 

A Treatise on the Law of Contracts§ 660 (3d ed. 1961). 

c. 

Lastly, we consider Love's claim for damages due to unjust 

enrichment of the defendant Chamber. Love argues that the Chamber 

was unjustly enriched in the amount of $22,698 by the payments by 

Love for paving the fair's midway and installing permanent 

underground facilities. Appellant's Brief at 16. 

This claim was not discussed in the district court's order 

granting partial summary judgment. Moreover, the June 23, 1986, 

judgment that Love "take nothing by way of its counterclaim except 

as specifically provided herein," 1 gave no reason for rejecting 

the unjust enrichment claim. Under Wyoming law it is clear that 

such a claim is not barred, even if the statute of frauds applies. 

Nastrom v. Sederlin, 3 P.2d 82, 84 (Wyo. 1931) (one who has 

performed labor and services under contract within statute of 

frauds, and which other party repudiates, may recover for such 

1 

As noted, the June 23, 1986, judgment awarded each party 

certain personal property and equipment. 

13 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 13 
services upon quantum meruit); see Black v. Hesse, 869 F.2d 420, 

422 (8th Cir. 1989); Restatement (Second) Contracts§ 375 (1981). 

In sum, even if the district court should, after trial, make 

findings and conclusions rejecting on the merits Love's oral and 

implied contract claims for damages for nonrenewal of the 1985 

carnival and concessions contract, nevertheless, the district 

court should consider Love's unjust enrichment claim and determine 

whether recovery on it is proper. 

Accordingly, the district court's summary judgment ruling is 

reversed; the provisions of the district court's June 23, 1986, 

judgment as to the division of property and equipment are 

affirmed; otherwise said judgment is reversed. The case is 

remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 

Entered for the Court 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

Chief Judge 

14 

Appellate Case: 86-2068 Document: 010110097260 Date Filed: 12/18/1990 Page: 14