Court Opinion

ID: 9553981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:38:35.329969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:42.381052
License: Public Domain

*382RUSSON, Justice,
concurring in part and concurring in the result:
I concur with the lead opinion but with the following exception. In regards to part IV of the lead opinion, I concur with Associate Chief Justice Stewart’s affirmance of the trial court’s judgment but disagree with his determination that there had been a modification of the contract between Kimball and Tsern. As to the latter point, I agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice Zimmerman and Justice Howe in their dissents.
In concurring with Associate Chief Justice Stewart’s affirmance in part IV, I do so on the basis of the trial court’s finding of fact No. 31, which specifically found that the elevator failed to satisfy the agreement between Richard Barton Enterprises and Tsern. It specifically states:
This Court finds that the condition of the elevator failed to satisfy the Agreement of the parties. The Agreement required an elevator in “good working order,” plaintiffs were therefore entitled to an elevator in “good” and “working” order. The most that can be said of the elevator in question is that it was “operational” for brief periods. It was neither in “good” nor “working” order.
While it is true that the trial court also found plaintiffs’ witness, Mr. Nicksie, to be the most credible witness on the point of “good working order,” the trial judge does not state that she relies solely upon his testimony in making her finding. In fact, the trial court’s finding No. 81 analyzed “good working order” and stands on its own. Just because the trial judge found witness Nicksic to be the most credible witness on the point, that does not necessarily mean that the trial judge relied upon his testimony totally in making her finding.