Opinion ID: 1173395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Direct Contract

Text: Lastly, plaintiffs contend that ABC undertook to correct the defects in the plaintiffs' hangar thereby creating a direct contract between ABC and the plaintiffs, at least for the correction of the defects. Notwithstanding that the plaintiffs plead a separate cause of action in contract and promissory estoppel in their second amended complaint, the trial court failed to address the matter of the direct contract claim. The district court merely stated [i]t is also my opinion that plaintiffs did not prove facts which established their right to recover from ABC under either of the theories of Ratification or Estoppel. Because our review of the record and transcript does not reveal the manner in which the trial court disposed of the direct contract issue, we are unable to review it on appeal. However, in view of our decision to remand this case on other issues, we believe it best to remand this issue for a new trial on the merits as well. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Costs to appellant. No attorney fees on appeal. BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ., and McFADDEN and TOWLES, JJ., Pro Tem, concur.