Court Opinion

ID: 9625743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:50:11.147812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:14.610742
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting):
It appears to me: that the issues in dispute between these parties were fully tried and determined in accordance with the spirit and intent of our Rules of Civil Procedure; that a jury, under careful and proper instructions from the court, has made findings and determination thereon; that they have been given approval by the trial court; consequently it is my opinion that the judgment should not be overturned.
Rule 15(b) provides that:
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment ... as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence . . . may be made ... at any time, . . . but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
Rule 54(c) (1) provides:
. every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. . .. . and it may, when the justice of the case requires it, determine the ultimate rights of the parties on each side as between or among themselves.
The agreement between these parties was based on their oral conversations and letters referring to them. As to definiteness they leave a great deal to be desired. Accepting the premise that as to the portion of defendant’s commercial property rented to the plaintiff the $140 per month was to be paid $70 in cash and the other $70 in labor and materials, there is no reason I know of why the parties could not modify such an agreement. As will be seen below, this was the view taken by the trial court and the basis upon which the issues were submitted to the jury.
There is ample basis in the evidence to support the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant requested the plaintiff to work on other parts of the defendant’s commercial property complex and promised to pay him at the same rates, that is, $3.50 per *138hour for labor and cost plus 10 per cent for materials, and that the plaintiff did so in compliance with that request.
It is the plaintiffs contention that he furnished such labor and materials of a total value of $1802.28, and deducting $310.92 as an offset for rent he owed, there remained owing $1491.46. Defendant answered by a denial, and asserted as a defense that the plaintiff was not qualified and licensed to do plumbing or carpentry work; and also counterclaimed for $1500 for alleged damages caused to the premises by the plaintiff.
The issues just stated were submitted to the jury for' determination under instructions which I think were fair, adequate and appropriate' as'shown by the following pertinent parts:
. the parties to an agreement may, by mutual consent, amend, modify or change the terms of the agreement. Such amendment, modification or change of the terms of an existing agreement may be accomplished by the parties orally; by a subsequent written instrument or even by a course of dealing. The burden to prove any such amendment, modification or change, however, is placed upon . the party [the plaintiff] claiming such fact and this must be established to your satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence.
• * * ' ' * * * *
. the Plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence as heretofore defined for you that the Plaintiff, pursuant to the agreement between the parties, provided labor and materials in renovating and remodeling Defendant’s building. On the other hand, the Defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the Plaintiff failed and refused to pay the rent and/or further damaged the Defendant’s building during the period of time the Plaintiff had possession of said premises.
******
. the plaintiff is attempting to recover under one theory of the law for the amount of the benefit which the defendant has received due to the improvements made by the plaintiff on the property of the defendant. In considering this theory, the plaintiff cannot recover for all of the time and money put in by him, but only for the actual worth of the work and materials to defendant, . . . . In determining the value of the benefit, you are permitted to consider as an offset any sum which it has cost the defendant to improve on the work done to meet the standard agreed upon by the parties, either expressly or implied, in the event you find the work performed by the *139Plaintiff did not meet such agreed upon standard.
******
If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that there was an express or an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant whereby the Plaintiff was induced to perform work for the defendant in return for a payment or credit, and if you further find that the Plaintiff in reliance upon such express or implied agreement actually performed work and services and/or furnished materials for the Defendant’s building, then the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the agreed price therefor, or in the event there was no agreement as to price, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable value of such work and materials.
On the basis of those instructions the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendant in the amount of_$1229.00
and allowed as an offset unpaid rental_ 490.00
leaving a net judgment of_ 739.00
This was a unanimous verdict, signed by all eight jurors.
'In a number of cases I have expressed my views as to the importance of respecting the right of trial by j'ury. In order to avoid repetition here I refer to them as expressed in my dissents in the cases of Roylance v. Davies, 18 Utah 2d 395, 424 P.2d 142; DeMille v. Erickson, 23 Utah 2d 278, 462 P.2d 159; and the authorities therein cited. On the basis of those principles I would sustain the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court. (All emphasis mine.)