Opinion ID: 1230615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: waiver theory

Text: We must also determine whether the appellants established a prima facie case in support of their waiver theory. Most litigation in this area concerns itself with failure to make timely payments under a land contract, but we see no reason why the pertinent rules are not equally applicable to any failure to strictly comply with other material contract provisions. In order to establish a prima facie case of waiver, the vendee must show that the vendor has condoned or assented to previous defaults and has not given notice of his intention to insist on strict compliance in the future. See, Baker v. Jones, supra; and Jones v. Clark, Wyo., 418 P.2d 792, 797. See, also, Nelms v. Miller, 56 N.M. 132, 241 P.2d 333, 348; 77 Am.Jur.2d, Vendor and Purchaser, § 588; and 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 409. The effect of such conduct is not, however, a waiver of a vendor's right to declare a forfeiture for future defaults. Jones v. Clark, supra. We said in Baker v. Jones , at 240 P.2d 1171-1172: It is now well established in law and in equity that forfeitures are not favored. Before one can declare a forfeiture it must appear that he has a clear right and then too he himself must be free from blame in the premises. Every reasonable presumption is against a forfeiture and every intendment and presumption is against a person seeking to enforce it. 17 C.J.S. Contracts, § 407 page 896. `Provisions for forfeiture may be waived and the courts are quick to take advantage of circumstances indicating such an intention.' 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 409, page 897. And, `So where the time fixed by the contract for performance is permitted to pass, both parties concurring, the time of performance thereafter becomes indefinite, and one party cannot rescind until full notice and a reasonable time for performance is given.' 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 506, page 1081... . In line with the holdings of other courts, this court has taken the opportunity to say that, `Forfeitures are not favored, and it is said that slight evidence of the lessor's intention to relinquish his right is sufficient to warrant the finding of waiver.'  Investors Guaranty Corp. v. Thomson, 31 Wyo. 264-273, 225 P. 590, 592, 32 A.L.R. 1071; Pacific-Wyoming Oil Co. v. Carter Oil Co., 31 Wyo. 314-329, 226 P. 193, and in the late case of Larsen Sheep Co. v. Sjogren, 67 Wyo. 447-465, 226 P.2d 177, 178, this court states, `Forfeiture of lease for breach of covenant or condition therein may be waived and, forfeiture not being favored, slight circumstances will at times suffice to constitute a waiver.' Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellants-buyers, it is apparent that buyers did establish a prima facie case of waiver concerning most of the alleged acts of default. With respect to the buyers' obligation to make interest payments to the seller, the evidence discloses that the buyers made one interest payment, of $5,853.66, on April 30, 1974, and, although no interest payments were made in 1975 or 1976, the seller gave no notices of default until the letter of March 3, 1977. Even then, the seller did not demand that the buyers become current on or within a reasonable time after the April, 1977, payment date. Rather, it demanded that buyers vacate the premises by March 18, 1977, or be subject to eviction. Furthermore, the evidence discloses that the seller made no demands with respect to past due taxes, the annual audits, the monthly inventories, or the condition of the premises. The seller could not legally declare a forfeiture on any of these grounds without first giving the buyers notice of its intention to insist on strict compliance, and additionally giving the buyers a reasonable time within which to perform or cure continuing defaults. The matter of the reduction in the number of animals is an entirely different fact situation. The buyers' evidence disclosed that by February, 1977, there were only 114 animals on the property, of which only 44 to 50 were sows. There is no evidence that the seller had authorized or had prior knowledge of these drastic animal reductions, even though seller and the bank were aware that the buyers had changed from a farrow-to-finish operation to a feeder-pig operation. Plaintiff, Charles L. Carlson, acknowledged the importance of maintaining adequate numbers of animals. There being no evidence that the seller had condoned the animal reduction, or had prior knowledge thereof, the seller was entitled to declare a forfeiture on the basis of the breach of this material condition of the contract. We hold, therefore, that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of waiver with respect to all of the alleged acts of default, and particularly with respect to the reduction of the animal population without seller's knowledge or acquiescence. Failing this, the trial court correctly found that the seller was entitled to rescind the contract and to retake possession under its provisions. There was no necessity for the seller to put on further evidence in order to sustain its counterclaim. Finally, it was appropriate to grant a six-month redemption period to the appellants since this was an agreed-to provision of the contract. Affirmed.