Opinion ID: 1834018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Price.

Text: Fairhope has not set out in its brief a condensed recital of the testimony of each witness as required by Supreme Court Rule 9(b). It is not clear from Fairhope's brief precisely what Fairhope claims the purchase price should be. The contract fixes the price to be paid by Daphne to include three elements as follows: (a) one-tenth of the principal remaining unpaid of bonds issued for contruction of the gas system, plus interest; [2] (b) If it shall become necessary to increase the capacity of the transmission line, the cost shall be paid by Fairhope and Daphne in the proportion that the needs of each has increased and the cost of such increased needs shall be added to the cost to Daphne in the acquisition of ownership; [3] and (c) if the corporate limits of Daphne shall be enlarged before Daphne shall purchase, the purchase price shall be increased in an amount equal to the fair and reasonable value of system owned by Fairhope within that territory added to Daphne by extension of the corporate limits. [4] The contract contains a provision whereby Daphne could lease the distribution system if Daphne so elected, and the references in the contract as to rental or lease relate to the lease provisions. Daphne did not elect to lease, however, and those references do not have any effect on the amount of the purchase price. (a) The court found that Fairhope did issue its bonds for the construction of the gas distribution system and gas transmission pipe line contemplated in the agreement, and that the amount of the principal remaining unpaid on the bonds issued for the construction of such gas distribution system and gas transmission pipe line originally constructed by the Respondent in 1950, plus interest, was $294,865.25. As we understand the testimony of Fairhope's witness, Marx, he testified that the unpaid amount of the bonds, plus interest, on the day of the trial, was $294,865.25. Ten per cent of that amount is $29,486.525. (b) The parties stipulated that the cost of the second transmission line was $216,000.00, and that, for the purposes of the NINETH paragraph of the contract, Daphne's increased needs were 12.15% and Fairhope's 87.85%. Twelve and fifteen hundredths per cent of $216,000.00 is $26,244.00. (c) Daphne's witness, Maples, a civil engineer of ten years' experience, testified that, in his opinion, the value of the system, to serve the thirty-two additional users taken in by Daphne in the newly annexed area, was approximately $10,000.00. The court found that the value of the system in the annexed area is $10,510.00. It thus appears that the price to be paid by Daphne was fixed as follows: (a) One-tenth of unpaid cost of original transmission line and distribution system $29,486.53 (b) 12.15% of cost of second transmission line 26,244.00 (c) System in newly annexed area 10,510.00 __________ Price fixed by court $66,240.53 Fairhope has not shown that the purchase price fixed by the court was error.