Court Opinion

ID: 7807226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:08:01.222639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:21.684557
License: Public Domain

Smith, J., (after stating the facts). The allegations of the complaint appear to be' more specific and definite than those contained in the exhibit. The complaint alleges the meaning of the term “furnishing trade” as used in the exhibit. The meaning of trade terms may be shown. The rule in such cases is stated in Lawson on Contracts, (2 ed.), § 390, p. 450. “The customs of particular classes of men soon give to particular words different meanings from those which they may have among other classes, or in the community generally. Mercantile contracts are commonly framed in a language peculiar to merchants, and hardly understood outside their world. Agreements which are entered into every day in the year between members of different trades and professions are expressed in technical and uncommon terms. The intentions of the parties, though perfectly well known to themselves, would be defeated were the language employed to be strictly construed according to its ordinary meaning in the world at large. Hence, while words in a contract relating to the ordinary transactions of life are to be construed according to their plain, ordinary and popular meaning, yet if, in reference to the subject-matter of the contract, particular words and expressions have by usage acquired a meaning different from their plain, ordinary and popular meaning, the parties using those words in such a contract must be taken to have used them in their peculiar sense. And so words, technical or ambiguous on their face, or foreign or peculiar to the sciences or the arts, or to particular trades, professions, occupations, or localities, may be explained, where they are employed in written instruments, by parol evidence of usage.” This question was recently thoroughly considered by this court in the case of Paepcke-Leicht Lbr. Co. v. Talley, 106 Ark. 400, in which case it was said: “Ordinarily, it is the duty of the court, in the trial of cases, to construe a written contract and declare its terms and meaning to the jury. But where the contract contains words of latent ambiguity, or where technical terms are used or terms which, by custom and usage, are used in a sense other than the ordinary meaning of the words, oral testimony is admissible to explain the meaning of the terms or words used, and the question may be submitted to the jury to determine in what sense they are used.” And the same opinion quotes from Wood v. Kelsey, 90 Ark. 272, the following language: ‘ ‘ Courts may acquaint themselves with the persons and circumstances that are the subject of the statements in the written agreement, and are entitled to place themselves in the same situation as the parties who made the contract, so as to view the circumstances as they viewed them, and so as to judge of the meaning of the words and of the correct application of the language to the things described.” It is urged by appellee that appellant undertook in his complaint to enlarge and vary the terms of the contract for the sale of the stock of goods. But the exhibit is merely evidentiary of the terms of the sale, and the sufficiency of the complaint is to be determined by a consideration of its allegations. We need not consider any possible difficulty which appellant may experience in proving the allegations of his complaint, as no such difficulties are before us, when the sufficiency of the complaint is tested on demurrer. We think the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently definite and certain to state a cause of aiction. It is urged that the complaint does not state what articles appellee would desire furnished to his tenants during the year 1912 and that the complaint does not state the quantity of such articles. But it can not be assumed that appellee did not know what articles he would wish to purchase from appellee, nor can we assume that appellee did not have'these articles for sale, as appellant had just purchased the stock of goods from appellee and this purchase constituted the consideration for the contract alleged to have been broken. In addition to the goods just purchased from appellee, appellant alleged that he bought additional goods and merchandise and articles to comply with said agreement at a cost of $5,000, and stood ready at all times during the year 1912 to furnish the merchandise embraced in the terms of the contract. Nor was there such uncertainty as to quantity as would render the contract void on that account. The contract as alleged in the complaint, was that 'appellee should purchase all of the goods from appellant, which appellee desired furnished to his tenants during the year 1912, and the exact quantity of such goods is alleged to he $2,516; but they-were purchased by appellee from another mercantile concern doing a similar business. There is almost an infinite number of cases on the ■ question of the recovery of profits by way of damages for breach of a contract; and this question has been the subject of a number of recent cases decided by this court. The rule in such cases, as stated by Mr. Justice Riddick, in the case of Beekman Lumber Co. v. Kittrell, 80 Ark. 228, was quoted from 13 Cyc. 53, as follows: “-The recovery of profits, as in the case of damages for the breach of contracts, in general depends upon whether such profits were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. If the profits are such as grow out of the contract itself, and are the direct and immediate result of its fulfillment, they form a proper item of ¡damages.” Such damages “must be certain both in their nature and in respect to the cause from which they proceed. It is against the policy of the law to allow profits as damages where such profits are remotely connected with the breach of contract alleged, or where they 'are speculative, resting only upon conjectural evidence or the individual opinion of parties or witnesses.” The majority of the court think the facts alleged in the complaint meet the requirements of this test. Appellee agreed to purchase from appellant all the supplies which it would be necessary to furnish appellee’s tenants during the year 1912, whether this- amount was much or little, but the allegations of the complaint show it to be an exact amount and the books of account which would have been kept would have shown the various articles bought, upon which, by calculation, the profits could have been ascertained. While these calculations might have proven intricate, that fact would not have prevented a recovery, if the proof of them was sufficient for such calculations to be made, and the allegations of the complaint are that such was the case with reference to this transaction. It is said that this contract is void for want of mutuality; but we do not think so. Appellee paid a fixed sum of money and agreed to give appellant employment for a definite time and to allow him a certain per cent of the profits. In consideration for this appellee agreed to purchase from appellant the supplies, which he would require for his tenants, and, whether that amount was much or little, it included all the supplies so to be purchased. This agreement necessarily implied that the goods should be sold at the usual and customary prices; just as such an agreement is implied in any case where goods are purchased without any definite understanding as to price. The question of mutuality of contract was considered in the case of Thomas-Huycke-Martin Co. v. Gray, 94 Ark. 9, the syllabus in which case reads as follows: “A contract whereby defendant at a price fixed undertook-to buy the output of a sawmill is not lacking in mutuality as not binding the plaintiffs to sell, since the contract implies a corresponding obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to sell at the stipulated price.” And the same case quoted with -approval from Lewis v. Atlas Mut. Life Ins. Co., 61 Mo. 534, the following language: “It very frequently happens that contracts on their face, and by their express terms appear to be obligatory on one party only; but in such cases, if it be manifest that it was the intention of the parties, and the consideration upon which one party assumed an express obligation, that there should be a corresponding and correlative obligation on the other party, such corresponding' and correlative obligation will be implied. As, if the act to be done by the party binding himself can only be done upon a corresponding act being done or allowed by the other party, an obligation by the latter to do or allow to be done the act or things necessary for the completion of the contract will necessarily be implied.” See also El Dorado Ice Co. v. Kinard, 96 Ark. 184. The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer.