Court Opinion

ID: 9514030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:34.027206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:10.063622
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 18] The trial court found that all parties contemplated that Express Press “would move into the building occupied by 3D pending completion of the sale.” The trial court also found 3D never requested Express Press to pay any expenses 3D was incurring and that this “was in accordance with the agreement of the parties.” Considering those findings together, the trial court might also have found that since the move was in contemplation of the sale, the lack of a request to Express Press to pay expenses was also in contemplation of the sale and that when the sale failed the contemplation or condition of the agreement also failed, thus entitling 3D to compensation for the expenses. However, the failure to complete the sale was apparently due to 3D’s financial condition. In light of that fact I agree the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available to 3D.
[¶ 19] Gerald W. Vande Walle, C.J.