Opinion ID: 2632148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sun Valley could have completed contract 9418.

Text: The district court found that during the time Sun Valley was making deliveries under 9418, it was also making deliveries to other producers at a higher price. Therefore, the district court held that because it was obvious that SVP was either unable or unwilling to tender complete performance, even within the extended time frame, Magic Valley was eventually justified in withholding payment. However, the district court's reasoning is not supported by its findings of fact. While not included in the district court's findings of fact, both Gus Blase and Richard Johnson testified that they understood the completion date under contract 9418 had been extended. Both sides testified at trial: Johnson that he thought it had been extended into September, and Blase that it was extended for 60 to 90 days. Thus, even under Magic Valley's understanding, Sun Valley still had until the end of September to complete performance. Furthermore, Blase testified that the 1994 crop year ended on August 8, but that the new crop year would begin only a few days later. Therefore, it was conceivable that Sun Valley could have completed delivery under contract 9418 within the extended period of time. In fact, the district court ruled that SVP did have at least through September to perform as best it could or would. Maybe though October. Either time was after MVF in effect repudiated 9418 by not paying in response to SVP's demands. The district court then proceeded to hold that Magic Valley was entitled to setoff against Sun Valley because Sun Valley breached the contract. However, there is no evidence in the record to show that Sun Valley could not have completed the contract by delivering potatoes from the new 1995 crop year. The district court erred in holding that because Sun Valley was not going to finish delivery anyway, that Magic Valley was justified in withholding payment.