Opinion ID: 2613808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis of majority opinion

Text: There are two types of contractual provisions which may arise under ORS 20.096, one being a limited provision such as we have in the case at bar, and the other being an unlimited provision. An example of an unlimited provision would be one reading along these lines: In case suit or action is brought to enforce any of the provisions hereof, second party agrees to pay such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable for first party's attorney fees and costs. [2] No problem arises under contracts containing an unlimited provision, because any suit or action would necessarily be covered by the provision of the contract, as modified by the reciprocal effect of ORS 20.096(1). As to a limited provision, however, the analysis is less clear. There are four types of claims which might arise under a limited provision. They are: 1. A claim by the favored party for a breach of contract with which the limited provision is concerned, and any defense thereto. 2. A claim by the favored party for breach of a contract provision other than the limited provision and any defense thereto. 3. A claim by the disfavored party for breach of contract relating to the limited provision and a defense thereto by the favored party. 4. A claim by the disfavored party for breach of a contract provision other than the limited provision, and a defense thereto by the favored party. I read the majority opinion as follows: Under categories 1 and 3, the prevailing party, whether the favored party or the disfavored party, would obtain attorney fees. Reciprocity and mutuality are achieved. On a category 4 claim (the case at bar) the disfavored party gets attorney fees. The opinion does not address the issues arising from a category 2 claim or a category 4 claim in which the favored party prevails. I dissent because the effect of the majority analysis achieves neither reciprocity nor mutuality and fails to attain the goal of the statute.