Opinion ID: 1381094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the superior court err in finding a contract between TTC and Robert Uchitel, Uchitel Company, and Visions, Ltd.?

Text: The superior court found that TTC and Uchitel Co., Visions, and Uchitel entered into an oral contract on March 15, 1978; that the terms and conditions of this contract were embodied in the written lease agreement and the letter of understanding containing the option to purchase; that the contract between the parties was not conditioned in any way upon TTC's ability to finance the lease; and that appellants failed to establish a statute of frauds defense since the contract was set down in a writing signed by appellants and TTC had substantially performed its contractual obligations prior to appellants' breach. We have previously held that [w]here the existence of an oral contract and the terms thereof are the points in issue and the evidence is conflicting, it is for the trier of the facts to determine whether the contract did in fact exist, and if so, the terms thereof. [7] Under Civil Rule 52(a) the superior court's findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous. [8] After review of the conflicting evidence in this case, and guided by Civil Rule 52(a) and the rule that requires an appellate court to take the view of the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party at trial, we hold that none of the aforementioned findings of the superior court concerning the existence and terms of the contract between the parties are clearly erroneous. [9]