Opinion ID: 1418510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Any error in combining the two proceedings for trial was waived by failure to object.

Text: In contending that the trial court erred in combining for trial a suit in equity for rescission with an action at law for damages defendant recognizes that this court may disregard this assignment of error because of defendant's failure to object at the time of trial. Nevertheless, defendant asks this court to apply to this case on appeal the rule that a trial court may order a new trial on its own motion for error which, if properly excepted to, would have been sufficient for that purpose, citing Smith v. Wetherell, 269 Or. 91, 103, 523 P.2d 1272 (1974) (dissenting opinion). See also Beglau v. Albertus, 272 Or. 170, 180-86, 536 P.2d 1251 (1975). Defendant also contends that plaintiffs were required to elect whether to proceed in equity to rescind the transaction or at law for damages, citing Mayer v. First National Bk. of Oregon, 260 Or. 119, 134, 489 P.2d 385 (1971). The Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act provides, by ORS 646.656, that: The remedies provided in ORS 646.605 to 646.652 are in addition to all other remedies, civil or criminal, existing at common law or under the laws of this state. In addition, subsequent to the trial of this case the Oregon legislature amended ORS 16.220 so as to now permit the joinder of a suit and an action. (Oregon Laws 1975, ch. 158) Regardless of whether ORS 646.656 permits such a joinder or whether plaintiffs would otherwise have been required to make an election of remedies, and despite the fact that the amendment to ORS 16.220 was not effective when this case was tried, we believe that under the circumstances of this case, including defendant's failure to object to the combining of the two proceedings for trial, this court should decline to exercise any inherent power that it may have to order a new trial in this case on this ground.