Opinion ID: 1809314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach-of-Contract Counterclaim

Text: The McCutchen Company argues that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for WKRG on its breach-of-contract counterclaim because the industry standard associated with advertising contracts allows a party to cancel an advertising contract with two weeks' notice. WKRG contends that industry standards do not apply to The McCutchen Company's advertising contract because that contract specifies that it is an annual contract and that it is noncancellable. WKRG argues that a court should not use industry standards to construe a contract when the contract is not ambiguous. `A plaintiff can establish a breach-of-contract claim by showing (1) the existence of a valid contract binding the parties in the action, (2) his own performance under the contract, (3) the defendant's nonperformance, and (4) damages.' Winkleblack v. Murphy, 811 So.2d 521, 529 (Ala.2001) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Slade, 747 So.2d 293, 303 (Ala.1999), quoting in turn Southern Med. Health Sys., Inc. v. Vaughn, 669 So.2d 98, 99 (Ala.1995) (emphasis omitted)). The parties do not dispute that The McCutchen Company and WKRG executed a valid advertising contract or that WKRG performed under the contract. The dispute is whether, as The McCutchen Company argues, it had the right to cancel the contract by giving WKRG two weeks' notice. We conclude that The McCutchen Company failed to support its argument that the advertising contract was governed by the industry standard for cancellation notice because it fails to cite the record or any legal authority in support of its argument. `Where an appellant fails to cite an authority, we may affirm, for it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the legal research for an appellant.' Henderson v. Alabama A & M Univ., 483 So.2d 392, 392 (Ala.1986) (quoting Gibson v. Nix, 460 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984)). Moreover, The McCutchen Company's argument that the two-week cancellation standard applies to this contract appears to be without merit because this Court has stated that `evidence of custom is admissible only to explain an ambiguous contract or to add to it an element not in contravention of its terms; but such evidence is never admissible to contradict the plain unambiguous covenants and agreements expressed in the contract itself.' Mall Gift Cards, Inc. v. Wood, 288 Ala. 355, 358, 261 So.2d 31, 34 (1972) (quoting Miller v. Gray, 136 Tex. 196, 200, 149 S.W.2d 582, 583 (1941)). The advertising contract at issue in this case clearly specifies that it is a noncancellable annual contract, and industry standards do not apply to alter these unambiguous terms. The summary judgment entered in favor of WKRG on the breach-of-contract counterclaim, therefore, was proper. The McCutchen Company argues finally that the trial court erred in awarding WKRG $48,300 in damages because, it argues, WKRG had a duty to mitigate its damages; therefore, it argues, WKRG was entitled only to damages for the advertising services it did not sell to other parties after The McCutchen Company canceled its contract. The McCutchen Company points out that WKRG was able to sell all the promotional spots and the five-minute segment after the 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. news broadcast but was unable to sell the billboard advertisements that appeared during the 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. news broadcasts. This is a facially persuasive argument; however, The McCutchen Company's brief contains no citation to any relevant legal authority to support its contention that WKRG had a duty in these circumstances to mitigate its damages from the loss of advertising revenues. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's damages award. Henderson, 483 So.2d at 392 (`Where an appellant fails to cite an authority, we may affirm, for it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the legal research for an appellant.' (quoting Gibson v. Nix, 460 So.2d at 1347)). Because The McCutchen Company has not provided substantial evidence showing that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment on WKRG's breach-of-contract counterclaim, we affirm that judgment.