Court Opinion

ID: 9689076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:18:27.352519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.266043
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent because on the record before us I conclude that summary judgment should have been granted dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Construing the contract language, “The Company will endeavor, but does not guarantee, to provide the specialized labor and equipment to harvest the crop,” most strongly against defendant, there would have to be bad faith on the part of defendant in failing to harvest before it would be subjected to liability.
The affidavits completely negate any bad faith. The decision not to continue with the harvest of plaintiff’s corn because of immaturity was based upon the decision of defendant’s quality control laboratory. The decision not to complete the harvest later was based upon the field-man’s daily personal inspection and his determination that plaintiff’s fields were too wet.
Plaintiff’s affidavit that he was home and did not see the fieldman when he made the inspection is of no counteracting effect in the absence of an allegation that he was in a position to observe such visits and was watching for the fieldman.
“Testimony can be said to be truly negative only when it tends to prove the nonexistence of a fact by reason of a *433mere failure to observe or remember its existence.” Coel v. Green Bay Traction Co. (1911), 147 Wis. 229, 234, 133 N. W. 23.
“Defendant’s negative testimony that he did not see any activated brake lights, in the absence of any testimony that he was making an observation to ascertain this, is insufficient to rebut this evidence.” St. Clair v. McDonnell (1966), 32 Wis. (2d) 469, 475, 145 N. W. (2d) 773.
The fact that plaintiff had tractors available to assist in the harvesting is of no legal significance because defendant had its own self-powered corn harvesting equipment.
I particularly deplore sending the case back for a jury factual determination of what the parties meant by the contract term “endeavor” and thus permit a complete negation of the qualifying words that defendant “does not guarantee.” If the case is to be remanded for a factual determination of any issue, such issue should be whether defendant acted in bad faith.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Wilkie joins in this dissenting opinion.