Opinion ID: 523272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Affirmative Defense

Text: 10 The trust funds sued to enforce the liquidated damages provision and the court held it void as a penalty. The funds now argue that UMC waived the void as a penalty defense. Although UMC did not mention the defense in its answer as required, the funds raised no objection, discussed it at trial and offered evidence on actual damages. 11 We treat issues tried by the express or implied consent of the parties as raised in the pleadings, even if the parties made no formal amendment. E.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1522 (9th Cir.1985); Dale Benz, Inc. Contractors v. American Casualty Co., 303 F.2d 80, 84 n. 5 (9th Cir.1962); Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, Inc., 269 F.2d 375, 391 (9th Cir.) (failure to plead defense affirmatively shall not affect the decision of those issues when tried by express or implied consent of the parties.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 893, 80 S.Ct. 197, 4 L.Ed.2d 151 (1959); Kollsman v. City of Los Angeles, 565 F.Supp. 1081, 1088-89 (C.D.Ca.1983), vacated on other grounds, 737 F.2d 830 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1211, 105 S.Ct. 1179, 84 L.Ed.2d 327 (1985). 12 At trial, UMC and the trust funds addressed whether the provision was void as a penalty. The funds failed to allege prejudice in their ability to respond and we find none. Because they did not argue waiver during the trial nor attempt reconsideration on these grounds, we shall consider the defense.