Court Opinion

ID: 9696272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:43:15.770247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:40.795982
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,
dissenting. Missing from the majority opinion is the fact that both parties in the action, at the close of all the evidence, moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the determination of whether the contract was entire or severable was a matter of law to be decided by the court, and presented no factual question for the jury. This is clearly set forth in their respective motions, and the lower court, in the presence of the jury, the parties and counsel, and before ruling on the motions, stated “we are also inclined to agree with counsel that there is no issue here for the jury.” No exception was taken to the statement so made. Indeed, after the direction of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the only objection made by the defendant to the direction of the verdict was as to the amount of damages which the court directed the jury to find for the plaintiff.
Our rule is that when both parties move for a verdict the loser does not waive his right to go to the jury. But if it affirmatively appears that neither party wishes to go to the jury, it is for the court to direct such verdict as in its judgment the evidence requires. Scover, Webster and Reirden v. Lang, 92 Vt. 501, 104 Atl. 877; Union Cooperative Store v. Fumagalli, 107 Vt. 145, 148, 175 Atl. 847. In my view, the record before us affirmatively shows that neither party wished to go to the jury on the question of the interpretation of the contract. Even after the direction of the verdict the defendant’s only complaint was on the amount of damages awarded, and not to the court’s direction to the jury as to the nature of the contract. To *173allow this defendant now to present to another jury the very question which he affirmatively made clear he did not wish the jury in the original trial to consider affords an opportunity for “second guessing” to which I do not believe him entitled under our decisions. In effect, he is allowed to change completely his position stated in the trial below, and upon which the trial court relied in making its ruling, because the ruling was adverse to him.
The majority opinion, however, does not cover the point just presented, which admittedly was not briefed. In that opinion, the remand and new trial were granted on the basis that the case could not be taken from the jury by the court below because the construction of the contract was for the jury on the conflicting inferences in the case presented by the evidence. In considering this aspect of the majority opinion I do not wish to be understood as standing for the proposition that the trial court could not have submitted the case to the jury, even in the face of motions from both sides asking solely for the court’s determination of the issue. If, despite the motions, the lower court had believed that there was conflicting evidence upon a material fact, its duty would have been to submit the question for the consideration of the jury, regardless of the motions.
The first question to be considered by the lower court under the motions for directed verdict was the written contract between the parties. If the contract was plain and unambiguous on its face so that it left no room for construction, it should be given effect according to its language. In re Beach Estate, 112 Vt. 333, 335, 24 A.2d 340. And this would be so although it is undisputed that both parties gave extrinsic evidence relative to the circumstances occurring after the contract was made in an effort to support their respective views of the contractual terms. For it is only when the meaning of a contract is uncertain that resort may be had to the well settled but subordinate rules of construction. Davidson v. Vaughan, 114 Vt. 243, 247, 44 A.2d 144; In re Pirie Estate, 116 Vt. 159, 164-165, 71 A.2d 245.
As the majority opinion states, the contract between the parties consisted of two writings. The first writing was an order, drawn up by the salesman of the defendant, which provided for the delivery of the granite pieces ordered, by the words, “start shipping Feb. 15th to June 15th mixed quantities.” The second writing is the letter from the defendant accepting the order. Because the real question *174presented by this case is to the terms and manner of payment provided for by the contract the acceptance letter is of vital importance.
The key phrase in that letter is, “The total amount of the order is $6,395.00. Less 2% in 15 days.” To me, as it was to the trial court, the meaning is plain and unambiguous. The total sum of $6,395.00 is subject to the discount offered if paid within fifteen days from whatever time it might be that the entire sum, became due and payable. Had the defendant wished to make one of the terms of the contract that payment should be made after each shipment, and that discounts could be taken only if payment was made within a specified term after each shipment this could easily have been stated in the acceptance letter, a part of the contract itself. This the defendant did not do, and so the contract provided for a single payment for the total order, with a two percent discount available to the plaintiff if the total was paid within fifteen days from due date.
I agree with the trial court that the contract between the parties was evident and clear in its meaning and terms and should be given effect according to its unambiguous language. But, even if the acceptance letter of the defendant, above quoted, is not considered as setting forth the terms of payment, the same result must be reached. In the case of Brandon Manufacturing Co., v. Morse, 48 Vt. 322, the following factual situation was found to exist:
The defendant agreed to deliver to the plaintiff one hundred cords of wood by March 15, 1872. The price for the wood was four dollars and seventy-five cents a cord. This contract was signed by the defendant on December 8, 1871 and was accepted by the plaintiff who sought to enforce it in this action.
The defense was that several deliveries of this wood had been made by the defendant to the plaintiff, but that although the plaintiff had made some payment of certain sums of money, payment in full had not been made after each delivery so that the plaintiff had not fulfilled its part of the contract. Defendant offered to show by parol testimony that the plaintiff had agreed to make such payments upon each delivery as part of the contract.
In sustaining the verdict for the plaintiff, the Court, through Chief Justice Pierpoint, stated:
“When this contract was accepted it became binding upon both parties, the same as if it had been signed by both. One was *175bound to deliver the wood, and the other to pay the stipulated price upon delivery. The time when payment is to be made is not in terms fixed by the contract, but the law fixed it as definitely and with as much certainty as it could be by words. The legal force and effect of the contract, is, that the plaintiff should pay for the wood at the stipulated price, when delivered, on demand. There is no ambiguity about the contract that requires explanation by parol testimony. Parol testimony is no more admissible to vary the clear and settled legal meanings and effect of a contract than it is to vary its terms. It would hardly be claimed under such a contract as this, it would be competent to show by parol that it was agreed when it was made, that payment was not to be made until some time subsequent to the time when the one hundred cords of wood should be delivered. Yet such testimony would be just as admissible as like testimony to show that the wood, or any part of it, was to be paid for before it was delivered.
“This contract is not divisible; it is an entire contract for delivery of one hundred cords of wood; and the fact that the price is fixed by the cord, does not vary it in that respect. This contract is the same as though the price had been fixed at the gross amount of $475. The fact that the plaintiff paid the defendant something upon the contract before the wood was delivered, has no effect to vary the contract. Such payment was entirely voluntary, the plaintiff being under no legal obligation to make it.”
Omitting the differences in the subject matter of the contract before us, and that considered by the Court in the Brandon case, the contract before us states the gross price as part of the contract itself, and provides for a discount upon prompt payment not found in the contract for the delivery of cord wood. The principles to be applied arc the same.
In support of its order for reversal and new trial, the majority opinion states that the trial judge overlooked a provision of the Uniform Sales Act, 9 V.S.A. §1542, although the provisions of this act are not cited in either of the briefs before us, nor did either party rely upon any provisions of this act in the proceedings below. Of more importance, perhaps, is that the principle stated in 9 V.S.A. §1542, “Unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment of the price are concurrent conditions,” is not here in dispute. The *176dispute between the parties here is whether payment was called for by partial delivery or only upon delivery of the entire amount of goods, and upon this question 9 V.S.A. §1542 is silent, although the following section, 9 V.S.A. §1545, makes it clear that it is the contract itself that must govern on the necessity for separate payments for each instalment delivery when such are made under a contract.
In my opinion, the contract before us is clearly not one calling for instalment deliveries which are to be separately paid for.
I would sustain the judgment of the court below.