Opinion ID: 2446239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sale of the Inventory

Text: [¶ 19] Alsham contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's finding of an enforceable agreement because Coastal did not tender performance. [6] Because Alsham did not have the burden of proof at trial on the breach of contract issue, we review Alsham's sufficiency of the evidence challenge for clear error. See Cellar Dwellers, Inc. v. D'Alessio, 2010 ME 32, ¶ 15, 993 A.2d 1, 5. Consequently, we examine the record, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record, in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine if the facts are supported by competent evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted). Further, in the absence of a motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), we assume that the trial court found all the facts necessary to support the outcome to the extent that they are supported in the record. See Malenko v. Handrahan, 2009 ME 96, ¶ 37, 979 A.2d 1269, 1278; Sutherland v. Morrill, 2008 ME 6, ¶ 5, 940 A.2d 192, 193. [¶ 20] Although the court found that both parties were to blame for the delay in conducting the inventory, the court made no finding of breach by either party with respect to the sale of the clothing store. Whether a breach of contract has occurred is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. VanVoorhees v. Dodge, 679 A.2d 1077, 1080 (Me.1996); cf. Down E. Energy Corp. v. RMR, Inc., 1997 ME 148, ¶ 8 n. 4, 697 A.2d 417, 420. Competent record evidence exists to show that the parties mutually assented to the delay of the inventory, and that the completion of the inventory was a condition upon both of their performances. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225 (1981). [7] Despite the delay of three years, the parties are still bound by their agreement. [¶ 21] Further, given the acrimony between the parties and their inability to cooperate on even ministerial tasks, it was not outside of the trial court's discretion to apply its equitable powers and enforce the agreement as written. See Sullivan v. Porter, 2004 ME 134, ¶ 25, 861 A.2d 625, 633 (It is within the trial court's equitable powers to apply the remedy of specific performance when a legal remedy is either inadequate or impractical.); Hardigan v. Kimball, 553 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Me.1989).