Court Opinion

ID: 9793594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:50:22.008515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:12.386535
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. On September 3, 1971, McCasland sold Prather four hot oil units under Contract for Sale of Business and Agreement Not to Compete. McCasland agreed not to compete for a five-year period. The subsequent sale of McCasland products to Prather had no fixed tenure. Paragraph 4 of the contract reads: To the extent that the same is permissible under New Mexico and federal law, Purchaser agrees to buy all acid he needs from McCasland Hot Oil Service and agrees to buy all brine and fresh water he needs from Sims & McCasland, a partnership. On May 28, 1976, McCasland filed a complaint against Prather and alleged: In violation of the terms of the Contract, defendant has failed and refused to buy all brine and fresh water from Sims & McCasland, although such brine and fresh water has been available at all times to him, and although plaintiffs have specifically requested that he do so. The trial court ordered plaintiffs’ complaint to be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No reasons were stated. As long as district judges and attorneys fail to insert in such judgments the basis for its conclusion, it renders no assistance to this Court. Criticism will continue to flow. Silence is golden below, but lead on appeal. The complaint did not allege, and the contract did not provide for, any fixed tenure for Prather to purchase brine and fresh water from McCasland. A fixed tenure existed for McCasland not to compete with Prather. That tenure expired on September 3, 1976 after the complaint was filed. McCasland could then compete with Prather. The complaint did not allege any duty of Prather to give notice of termination of the agreement to buy, if such notice may have been necessary, nor any duty of McCasland to sell Prather ad infinitum though its source of supply should end. The only issue on this appeal is: If a written contract fails to provide any fixed tenure for Prather to buy brine and fresh water, is that portion of the contract terminable at will? The answer is “yes.” Southwest Distributing v. Olympia Brewing, 90 N.M. 502, 565 P.2d 1019 (1977); Weilersbacher v. Pittsburgh Brewing Company, 421 Pa. 118, 218 A.2d 806 (1966); Kraftco Corporation v. Kolbus, 1 Ill.App.3d 635, 274 N.E.2d 153 (1971); House of Crane Incorporated v. H. Fendrich, Inc., 146 Ind.App. 478, 256 N.E.2d 578 (1970); Scanlan v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 388 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1968); Robert Porter & Sons, Inc. v. National Distillers Prod. Co., 324 F.2d 202 (10th Cir. 1963); Century Refining Company v. Hall, 316 F.2d 15 (10th Cir. 1963); Superior Concrete Accessories v. Kemper, 284 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. 1955); Annot., “Termination by Principal of Distributorship Contract Containing No Express Provision for Termination,” 19 A.L.R.3d 196, 264 (1968). Superior Concrete Accessories said: It is the general rule in both Illinois and Missouri, as well as elsewhere, that contracts for an indefinite period of time may be terminated at the will of either party. [284 S.W.2d at 490.] McCasland relies solely on the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 50A-2-309(2), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 1) reads: Where the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration it is valid for a reasonable time but unless otherwise agreed may be terminated at any time by either party. [Emphasis added.] Weilersbacher, supra, said: The adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code in Pennsylvania did not change the existing law so as to aid plaintiffs’ cause. [218 A.2d at 807.] This case is directly in point, unanswered by McCasland and the majority opinion. See also, Aaron E. Levine & Co., Inc. v. Calkraft Paper Co., 429 F.Supp. 1039 (E.D.Mich. 1976); Rockwell Engrg. Co. v. Auto. Timing & Controls Co., 559 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1977). This judgment should be affirmed.