Title: Widner Electric & Industrial, Inc. v. Lee
Citation: 537 P.2d 527
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: July 3, 1975

537 P.2d 527 (1975)
WIDNER ELECTRIC &amp; INDUSTRIAL, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Appellant,
v.
John LEE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.[*]
Argued and Submitted May 5, 1975.
Decided July 3, 1975.
Robert W. Collins, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
*528 Lawrence B. Rew, of Corey, Byler &amp; Rew, Pendleton, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Argued and Submitted at Pendleton May 5, 1975.
BRYSON, Justice.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum due on an account for the repair of a water pump which it had previously sold to defendant. Defendant filed his second amended answer, generally denying the allegations in plaintiff's complaint and affirmatively alleging a separate defense and counterclaim. On May 14, 1974, the day trial began, plaintiff filed a demurrer to defendant's separate affirmative defense and counterclaim and its reply which included a general denial and affirmative defense to the defendant's counterclaim.
The case was tried to a jury and after both parties rested, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on its complaint and then, for the first time, presented its demurrer to the court. The court denied plaintiff's demurrer and its motion for a directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant on his counterclaim, and the court entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff first contends that the court erred in denying plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's second amended answer and counterclaim. Defendant's further and separate defense alleged in part as follows:
Defendant's counterclaim alleged as follows:
The affirmative defense in plaintiff's reply alleged in part:
The defendant's counterclaim demanded judgment in the sum of $20,550. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of defendant in the amount of $6,500.
The pleadings were in effect challenged for the first time after the case was tried and both parties rested. Under these circumstances, we are committed to a liberal construction of the pleadings so that the defense and counterclaim will be upheld, if possible. See Fulton Ins. v. White Motor Corp., 261 Or. 206, 214, 493 P.2d 138 (1972); Hamilton v. Johnson, 137 Wash. 92, 241 P. 672, 673 (1925); ORS 16.120. When the plaintiff pleads over by filing a reply with an affirmative defense to the counterclaim, the counterclaim is entitled to every reasonable intendment. Winters v. Bisaillon, 153 Or. 509, 515, 57 P.2d 1095 (1936).
Plaintiff contends that "the affirmative defense does not allege that defendant relied upon any warranty" and that "there was no allegation of a breach of warranty in the counterclaim." Plaintiff relies upon Abilene Natl. Bank v. Nodine, 26 Or. 53, 37 P. 47 (1894), which states:
and that it is necessary
The defendant's pleadings are not artfully drawn and include allegations of the original sale of the water pump and motor combination as well as the failure of the plaintiff to properly repair the pump, which plaintiff had agreed to do some 30 days after the original sale. However, the counterclaim does allege that defendant engaged plaintiff to repair the pump and motor, that plaintiff agreed to make the repairs, and that the repairs were not properly performed, requiring defendant to have a third party "completely repair the pumping mechanism so that it would act as a pump of water from the well." The plaintiff did not file a motion requiring the defendant to make his pleadings more definite *530 and certain. We have held that pleadings are not fatally defective merely because they are not artfully drawn. Parker v. Faust, 222 Or. 526, 532, 353 P.2d 550 (1960). In Investors Ins. Corp. v. Dietz, 264 Or. 164, 504 P.2d 742 (1972), it was contended that the complaint did not state a cause of action. We held:
We have examined all of the evidence and there is lengthy testimony by experts on both sides as to whether the pump and motor were properly repaired by plaintiff, and it appears that the case was tried to a large extent on this basis.
We conclude that the counterclaim, liberally construed, adequately apprises plaintiff, without prejudice, of defendant's claim that the pump and motor were improperly repaired, thereby causing the pump to fail with resulting damages to defendant's crops. This is also a defense to plaintiff's action to recover the sum due for the repair of the pump.
As a general rule, where parties to a bilateral contract dispute the performance rendered by one party, the law is quite clear that a material breach by one party may lead to a discharge of the other's corresponding duty  in this case, the defendant's duty to pay for repairs improperly performed. Wasserburger v. Amer. Sci. Chem., 267 Or. 77, 82, 514 P.2d 1097 (1973). See also Annot., 44 ALR 824; 2 Restatement of Contracts 750, § 397.
The plaintiff also contends that the court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on its complaint, arguing, as heretofore set forth, that the defendant had not pleaded or proved a breach of warranty. For the above reasons, we find no error in this respect. The conflicting testimony offered by both parties to support their contentions made the matter a jury question.
Finally, the plaintiff claims the court "erred in failing to sustain objection" to the following questions put to witness McGillis and the answers given:
and the following questions put to defendant Lee and the answers given:
The plaintiff argues that the defendant did not "endeavor to establish the value of the 1973 crop of alfalfa seed" and that "[t]he correct measure [of damages] was the amount of the loss to the 1973 crop, plus damage to the freehold, if any." The defendant does not claim damages to the freehold. The plaintiff quite frankly cites 21 Am.Jur.2d, Crops § 80, as follows:
In Walter v. Echanis, 163 Or. 148, 150-51, 95 P.2d 979 (1939) (an action for the destruction of grass and other herbage and pasturage), this court held:
In Cross et ux. v. Harris, 230 Or. 398, 370 P.2d 703 (1962) (an action to recover damages for partial destruction of growing crops), we held:
McCormick, Damages § 126 (Hornbook Series 1935), discussing damage to crops, states, at page 487:
Affirmed.
[*]  HOLMAN, J., did not participate in this decision.