Court Opinion

ID: 9515332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:55:47.415971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:28.128944
License: Public Domain

ZINTER, Justice
(concurring).
[¶ 31.] I concur and write to emphasize the vast degree of factual dispute in this case. A review of the entire record re-*66fleets that the testimony concerning purchase and ownership of the equipment was in total conflict. The testimony concerning estoppel was also hopelessly clouded by factual disputes concerning the physical location and use of the equipment after it left Sweetman. Even the physical evidence was so conflicting that it could have sustained findings in support of either party: Peck possessed the contract to purchase the equipment from Sweetman, while Jerke possessed the bill of sale from Sweetman. Under these circumstances, this appellate opinion cannot adequately replicate all of the facts in favor of each party’s theories. For all of these reasons, this case cannot provide meaningful precedent for future cases. In the end, the case involves nothing more than deciding which witness to believe. Because the trial court made that credibility determination after listening to the witnesses testify, we are in no position to second-guess its finding.