Title: MILLER v TITECA
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-229
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 1981

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 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f and respondent, John M i l l e r , buyer, brought t h i s a c t i o n i n order t o recover damages caused by the seller's breach of a c a t t l e - s a l e s c o n t r a c t . A nonjury t r i a l was held i n the D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Sweet- g r a s s County, t h e Honorable Jack Shanstrom presiding. S e l l e r and defendant, John T i t e c a , now appeals from the judgment entered i n favor of the buyer i n the amount of $6,492.50. The s e l l e r p r e s e n t s nine separate i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Did the D i s t r i c t Court err by n o t barring maintenance of the buyer's a c t i o n by reason of the f i c t i t i o u s name s t a t u t e s ? 2. Did the D i s t r i c t Court err by n o t r u l i n g upon and granting t h e s e l l e r ' s motion f o r summary judgment f o r t h e rea- son t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t dated J u l y 20, 1978, was void a s a matter of law? 3 . Did the D i s t r i c t Court err i n n o t making f i n d i n g s and conclusions upon the i s s u e of the buyer's r e l i a n c e and r i g h t t o r e l y upon the c o n t r a c t of J u l y 20, 1978, a s a l l e g e d i n the complaint? 4. Were t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court supported by the evidence a s t o the i s s u e s of mutuality of o b l i g a t i o n and v a l i d consideration 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 20, 1978? 5. Did the D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n t h e findings and con- c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the i s s u e of excuse of performance by t h e s e l l e r ? 6. Did the D i s t r i c t Court err i n the 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 the 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 the D i s t r i c t Court err by n o t e n t e r i n g f i n d i n g s and conclusions r e l a t i n g t o excuse of performance by reason 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 the s e l l e r ' s f i n a l o f f e r s ? 8. s id the t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n the f i n d i n g s and conclu- s i o n s as t o the measure of damages based upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e complaint? 9. id the 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 the D i s t r i c t Court on a l l i s s u e s except 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 entered 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 the s a l e of 80 head of mixed calves. The s a l e p r i c e was 67 c e n t s per pound f o r 45 choice s t e e r c a l v e s and 60 c e n t s per pound f o r 35 choice h e i f e r calves, which p r i c e s were the then-prevailing market p r i c e s . The c o n t r a c t c a l l e d f o r the seller t o d e l i v e r the c a l v e s on o r before t h e t e n t h t o f i f t e e n t h of November 1978, with t h e understanding 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 least 45 days p r i o r t o delivery. The s e l l e r executed the c o n t r a c t by and f o r himself, even though t i t l e t o the calves was held by h i s wife alone. The buyer executed t h e c o n t r a c t by and through h i s agent, who signed "J. Miller Livestock Co., by E a r l ~ u t l e r " . The agent gave t h e seller a check f o r $2,000 a s downpayment a t t h e time of execution. There i s c o n f l i c t i n g testimony a s t o whether t h e agent was t o l d a t the t i m e of execution t h a t t h e seller would not cash t h e check and t h a t t h e calves w e r e i n f a c t owned by the seller's wife. The agent was t o l d t h a t t h e calves were located a t t h e s e l l e r ' s various p r o p e r t i e s i n Park, Golden Valley and Wheatland counties. Three weeks a f t e r execution, on August 1 4 , 1978, t h e s e l l e r informed t h e agent t h a t personal problems had a r i s e n , and t h e seller asked t h e agent t o o b t a i n replacement calves. The agent r e p l i e d t h a t he could acquire replacement calves. Six weeks a f t e r t e l l i n g the agent of h i s problems, on September 28, 1978, t h e s e l l e r phoned t h e buyer himself and informed the buyer t h a t no d e l i v e r y could be made u n t i l af ter January 1, 197 9, and t h a t the agent had i n d i c a t e d t h a t replacement calves could be obtained. The buyer, i n response, informed t h e seller t h a t t h e calves had already been sold by t h e buyer t o a feeder i n Minnesota. On October 16, 1978, t h e seller m e t t h e buyer's agent i n B i l l i n g s , and again advised him of the 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 January 1. The s e l l e r asked t h e agent whether replacement c a l v e s had been obtained. The agent r e p l i e d t h a t he would acquire them t h a t same day. Replacement c a l v e s w e r e acquired, 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 with the feeder 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 17, t h e buyer entered i n t o another c o n t r a c t f o r the t r a n s f e r of t h e calves which he was buying from t h e s e l l e r . That second c o n t r a c t was made with a Fred Schwartz, who the s e l l e r claims was a business 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 of t h e need t o comply with the c o n t r a c t , and extending 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 next day, November 9, t h e s e l l e r returned t h e uncashed $2,000 check t o t h e agent, which check had been given a s downpayment. I n a letter accompanying t h e check, the s e l l e r s t a t e d t h a t de- l i v e r y was impossible, and requested more t i m e , On November 13, 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 15. The s e l l e r replied t h a t d e l i v e r y by t h a t d a t e would be impossible due t o t h e bad weather. The seller informed t h e buyer t h a t t h e c a l v e s were located a t t h e s e l l e r ' s various 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 feed them. The buyer s t a t e d t h a t he would r e f u s e t o take d e l i v e r y a f t e r January 1, because he wound up h i s business a t t h e end of the year and because t h e c a l v e s would be so heavy by then as t o be considered yearlings. O n November 17, the s e l l e r informed t h e buyer'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 15, due t o t h e c a l v e s ' poor condition and t o the bad weather. O n November 18, t h e s e l l e r s t a t e d t o t h e buyer's a t t o r n e y by phone t h a t no d e l i v e r y could be made u n t i l a f t e r January 1, because of t h e period of t i m e required f o r weaning and weight gain. The buyer f i l e d s u i t on December 8, praying f o r s p e c i f i c performance o r f o r damages i n t h e event t h e seller 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 persons t o plow h i s ranch road, and a f t e r two days of plowing was a b l e t o truck o u t some calves. Eighteen of the c a l v e s w e r e sold i n an unweaned condition on December 1 5 i n B i l l i n g s . The remaining 72 calves w e r e weaned and g r a i n fed f o r 45 days, and w e r e sold i n B i l l i n g s over four s e p a r a t e d a t e s i n January and February 1979, f o r p r i c e s of up t o $1 per pound. A l l money was paid t o t h e seller's wife, t h e owner of record. The s e l l e r f i l e d a motion t o join an indispensable p a r t y and a motion t o dismiss on January 18. The " i n d i s - pensable party" was apparently t h e buyer's agent. ~ e a r i n g on the motion was held on February 1. N o r u l i n g was made. On February 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 barred because of the buyer's f a i l u r e t o comply with 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 s t a t u t e s . O n August 6 , 1979, t h e s e l l e r moved f o r summary judgment, based upon alleged voidness of the c o n t r a c t due t o the s e l l e r ' s n o t owning the calves. A hearing was held 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 another motion f o r summary judgment on March 25, 1980, based upon an alleged f a i l u r e of consideration. N o hearing was ever held. Nonjury t r i a l was held on April 3 and 15, 1980. The D i s t r i c t Court entered judgment f o r t h e buyer i n t h e amount of $6,492.50, together with 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 appeals. 1. FICTITIOUS NAME The a p p e l l a n t , seller, a l l e g e d , a s an a f f i r m a t i v e defense i n h i s answer, t h a t the buyer's a c t i o n is barred 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 Livestock Co.", a s required by former s e c t i o n 30-13-111, MCA, 1978, i n e f f e c t a t the time t h i s c o n t r a c t was executed ( J u l y 20, 1978) b u t s i n c e repealed (Sec. 18, Ch. 260, Laws of Montana, 1979). The former s t a t u t e was q u i t e o l d , and had been construed and applied s e v e r a l t i m e s . Generally, t h i s Court held t h a t i f a business name f a i r l y disclosed t h e t r u e names of a l l persons i n t e r e s t e d i n the business, then no compliance with t h e s t a t u t e was necessary; and, t h a t t h e duty 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 lack of compliance. Canonica v. S t . George (1922), 64 Mont. 200, 205, 206, 208 P. 607, 608; C r o f t v. Bain (1914), 49 Mont. 484, 489, 143 P. 960, 962. The s e l l e r has p l a i n l y f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden of proof. Although he r e f e r s t o t h e agent and t h e e a s t e r n feeder a s buyer's "partners" throughout t h e pleadings, t r a n s c r i p t and b r i e f , t h e record contains no evidence t o show t h a t anyone besides John 0. M i l l e r has any i n t e r e s t i n the business "J. M i l l e r Livestock co." ~t is n o t enough f o r t h e seller t o merely claim t h a t he i s without knowledge o r t h a t he has r a i s e d questions about t h e s t a t u s of t h e business. C r o f t v. Bain, supra. The business name h e r e f a i r l y d i s c l o s e s the name of t h e person i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e business. Because t h e seller f a i l e d t o prove h i s a l l e g a - t i o n s , any e r r o r s by the 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 harmless, a s the motions should have been denied. 2. WHETHER T H E CONTRACT IS VOID Theseller argues t h a t the c o n t r a c t of J u l y 20, 1978, i s void due t o the f a c t t h a t he d i d n o t own t h e calves a t t h e time of execution, claiming the c o n t r a c t i s wholly impossible and unlawful a s proscribed 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 does n o t own does n o t r a i s e the defense of i m p o s s i b i l i t y . Mont. B a r r e t t v. Ballard (1980), - - , 622 P.2d 180, 184, 37 St.Rep. 2038, 2041. The burden of proving 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 the defense; such p a r t y must demonstrate t h a t he took v i r t u a l l y every a c t i o n within 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 . Smith v. Zepp (1977), 173 Mont. 358, 365-366, 567 P.2d 923, 927. The s e l l e r o f f e r e d no evidence a s t o why it was impossible f o r him t o o b t a i n h i s w i f e ' s consent t o t h e s a l e o r t o buy her out. "The o b j e c t of a c o n t r a c t must be lawful when t h e con- t r a c t i s made and p o s s i b l e . . . by t h e time the c o n t r a c t i s t o be performed." Section 28-2-602, MCA. The seller has f a i l e d t o show t h a t it was impossible 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 Court'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 harmless because it should have been denied. 3. BUYER'S RIGHT TO RELY The s e l l e r argues t h a t the buyer's complaint sought damages due t o the buyer's detrimental 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 obligated himself t o r e s e l l t h e c a l v e s t o an e a s t e r n feeder, which o b l i g a t i o n t h e buyer i s now unable 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 argues t h a t , based upon the buyer's own pleadings, t h e buyer cannot recover because he could - n o t detrimentally 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 occasions t h a t t h e seller would n o t be a b l e t o f u l f i l l the c o n t r a c t . This argument i s beside the point. Damages were u l t i m a t e l y determined on t h e simple b a s i s of d i f f e r e n c e between market 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 execution, a s provided by Montana's Uniform Com- mercial 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 Court's method of resolving damages d i d not conform p r e c i s e l y with t h e buyer's complaint, b u t the c o u r t ' s a c t i o n w a s proper. A l l pleadings s h a l l be so 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 should "look t o the c l a i m a s a whole, t o t h e s u b j e c t with which it d e a l s , t o t h e reason 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 can reasonably be s a i d t o be within t h e scope of t h e language used, t h a t purpose should be honored." Hidden Hollow Ranch v. C o l l i n s (1965), 146 Mont. 321, 325, 326, 406 P.2d 365, 368. The purpose and s p i r i t behind t h e buyer's complaint i s t o recover f o r breach of c o n t r a c t , and damages based upon the changes i n market p r i c e s are within t h e scope of t h e complaint. 4: L A C K O F CONSIDERATION AND LACK O F MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION The s e l l e r argues t h a t v a l i d consideration and mutuality 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 findings and conclusions f a i l t o s e t f o r t h these elements, t h a t t h e buyer has suffered no l e g a l detriment i n t h e nature of consideration f o r the reason 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 calves t o an e a s t e r n feeder has n o t been enforced by t h e feeder. The s e l l e r f a i l s t o recog- n i z e t h a t mutual promises a r e v a l i d consideration. The buyer promised t o pay the 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 the 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 condition. The buyer delivered a $2,000 check as downpayment on h i s promise. Mutual promises alone a r e enough t o c o n s t i t u t e v a l i d consideration. Section 28-2- 801, MCA; s e e 17 C.J.S. Contracts, SS97, 98. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e buyer gave t h e check a s downpayment, notwithstanding 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 undis- puted, 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 F P E R F O R M A N C E The s e l l e r argues t h a t t h e evidence shows he intended t o d e l i v e r the c a l v e s by t h e extended d a t e of December 15, b u t was excused from performance because of t h e bad weather. 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 seller d i d n o t s o intend, which b e l i e f i s supported by t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h i n t h e discussion of i s s u e no. 6, below. The f i n d i n g s a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous, and w i l l not be set a s i d e . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. 6: IMPOSSIBILITY O F P E R F O R M A N C E The s e l l e r a s s e r t s another defense of i m p o s s i b i l i t y due t o harsh weather conditions a t t h e t i m e set f o r delivery. The t r i a l c o u r t apparently found t h e s e l l e r d i d not intend t o - d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r January 1 i n any case. Such a finding i s supported by the following f a c t s : t h e seller 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 could be made u n t i l a f t e r January 1; t h e seller had been i n t i m a t i n g a n unwillingness 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 ; and, t h e seller, i n order t o wean t h e cows f o r t h e agreed 45-day period, would have had t o s t a r t weaninq by October 31 i n o r d e r t o d e l i v e r by December 15. October 31 was n i n e d a y s before 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 conclu- s i o n s . 7: EXCUSE O F PERFORMANCE BY R E A S O N O F REJECTION The seller argues t h a t t h e buyer wrongfully r e j e c t e d d e l i v e r y a f t e r January 1 and such r e j e c t i o n made performance impossible due t o t h e b u y e r ' s hindrance. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e seller had never d e l i v e r e d any c a l v e s ( f i n d i n g no. 1 3 ) , and concluded t h a t t h e f a i l u r e of t h e seller t o make even p a r t i a l performance amounted t o a complete breach 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 supported by t h e evi- dence t h a t t h e seller f a i l e d t o tender d e l i v e r y a f t e r January 1; t h a t a l l he d i d was s t a t e on s e v e r a l occasions t h a t he would be unable t o d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r January 1; and t h a t t h e buyer always demanded d e l i v e r y by t h e agreed d a t e . A f t e r January 1 t h e seller 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 an increased p r i c e without o f f e r i n g them t o t h e buyer. 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 erroneous. 8: D A M A G E S The seller argues t h a t t h e buyer never purchased replace- ment c a l v e s i n order 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 feeder; 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 taken i n t o account. But damages w e r e calcu- l a t e d on t h e b a s i s of change i n market p r i c e alone, pursuant t o s e c t i o n 30-2-713, MCA. The buyer'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 an i s s u e here. 9: A T T O R N E Y FEES The s e l l e r argues t h a t the buyer i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . The buyer admits t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s can only be granted pursuant t o express s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l provision, b u t argues t h a t where a p a r t y a c t s i n bad f a i t h during l i t i g a t i o n and discovery, a t t o r n e y f e e s should be awarded t o cover t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s unnecessary expenses i n dealing with the bad f a i t h . The D i s t r i c t Court 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 complaint the buyer sought damages f o r breach of c o n t r a c t . A s s t a t e d by t h i s Court i n Masonovich v. School D i s t r i c t No. 1 (1978), 178 Mont. 138, 1 4 1 , "'Generally, t h e r e can be no recovery 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 unless authorized 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 authorizing a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s case, a t t o r n e y f e e s may not be awarded. CONCLUSION W e a f f i r m the judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court except as t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e reverse t h e judgment on t h a t i s s u e . W e concur: