Opinion ID: 2611955
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract Defense

Text: The agreement required Coronado to take a written exception to any monthly statement within 24 months after the end of the calendar year in which the statement was received or the statement was presumed correct. Ferguson argues that Coronado failed to take a written exception for the months between January 1986 and December 1988. Therefore, Ferguson contends, the statements were presumed correct and Coronado should not be able to obtain damages for those months. Both parties vigorously contest whether Coronado did indeed comply with the exception requirement. We need not, however, decide that question because we conclude that the contract defense is unavailable to defeat an action in tort. Where the transaction complained of has its origin in a contract which places the parties in such a relation that in attempting to perform the promised service the tort was committed, the breach of contract is not the gravamen of the action. The contract in such case is mere inducement, creating the state of things which furnishes the occasion of the tort, and in all such cases the remedy is an action ex delicto, and not an action ex contractu. Schneider Nat'l, Inc. v. Holland Hitch Co., 843 P.2d 561, 586 (Wyo.1992) ( quoting 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 732 (1991)). Coronado's action was in tort, not contract. The exceptions clause in the contract is unavailable to defeat or mitigate Coronado's damages arising out of the tort committed by Ferguson.