Court Opinion

ID: 9538377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:35:50.601035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:49.846464
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Chief Judge (specially concurring). I agree that plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the sales price of the oral contract and to damages for Galio’s violation of § 53-ll-50(B), N.M.S.A. 1978. I specially concur because Judge Lopez’ opinion refers to specific performance. Plaintiff sold the stock to Galio; because he had not been paid, he sought damages for breach of the sales contract. This is not a case for specific performance. Raton Waterworks Company v. Town of Raton, 174 U.S. 360, 43 L.Ed. 1005, 19 S.Ct. 719 (1899); Pugh v. Tidwell, 52 N.M. 386, 199 P.2d 1001 (1948); Gillett v. Warren, 10 N.M. 523, 62 P. 975 (1900). Whatever viability remains as to the remedy of specific performance should not be rendered uncertain by references to specific performance in a case where plaintiff recovered damages for breach of contract. I also specifically concur because Judge Lopez’ opinion fails to explain why the statutory penalty is not inconsistent with damages for breach of contract. Section 53-11-50(B), supra, states that the penalty is awarded “in addition to any other damages”.