Miller v. Titeca

No. 80-229
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981

JOHN MILLER,

Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS.

JOHN TITECA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Sweet Grass.
Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
J. Brian Tierney, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
Paulson and Tulley, Big Timber, Montana

Submitted on briefs: February 5, 1981

Decided: June 1, 1.981

I * Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

P l a i n t i f f and r e s p o n d e n t , John M i l l e r , b u y e r , b r o u g h t

t h i s a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o r e c o v e r damages c a u s e d by t h e s e l l e r ' s

b r e a c h of a c a t t l e - s a l e s c o n t r a c t . A n o n j u r y t r i a l was h e l d

i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Sweet-

g r a s s County, t h e Honorable J a c k Shanstrom p r e s i d i n g . Seller

and d e f e n d a n t , John T i t e c a , now a p p e a l s from t h e judgment

e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e buyer i n t h e amount of $6,492.50.

The s e l l e r p r e s e n t s n i n e s e p a r a t e i s s u e s f o r review:

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t b a r r i n g maintenance

o f t h e b u y e r ' s a c t i o n by r e a s o n of t h e f i c t i t i o u s name

statutes?

2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t r u l i n g upon and

g r a n t i n g t h e s e l l e r ' s motion f o r summary judgment f o r t h e r e a -

son t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t d a t e d J u l y 2 0 , 1978, was v o i d a s a

m a t t e r of law?

3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n n o t making f i n d i n g s

and c o n c l u s i o n s upon t h e i s s u e of t h e b u y e r ' s r e l i a n c e and

r i g h t t o r e l y upon t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978, a s a l l e g e d

i n t h e complaint?

4. Were t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s made by t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e i s s u e s of

m u t u a l i t y of o b l i g a t i o n and v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o

t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978?

5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n t h e f i n d i n g s and con-

c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i s s u e of e x c u s e of performance by

the seller?

6. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n t h e f i n d i n g s and con-

c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i s s u e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y of performance

by t h e S e l l e r ?

7. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by n o t e n t e r i n g f i n d i n g s
and c o n c l u s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o excuse of performance by r e a s o n
of t h e a c t i o n s and r e j e c t i o n of t h e buyer a f t e r t h e s e l l e r ' s

f i n a l offers?

8. s id t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u -

s i o n s as t o t h e measure of damages based upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

of t h e c o m p l a i n t ?

9. id t h e t r i a l c o u r t err i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s

t o t h e buyer?

W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on a l l i s s u e s e x c e p t no. 9

a s t o a t t o r n e y f e e s ; we r e v e r s e on t h a t i s s u e .

T h e - s e l l e r and buyer e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t on

J u l y 20, 1978, f o r t h e s a l e of 80 head of mixed c a l v e s . The

s a l e p r i c e was 67 c e n t s p e r pound f o r 45 c h o i c e s t e e r c a l v e s

and 60 c e n t s p e r pound f o r 35 c h o i c e h e i f e r c a l v e s , which

p r i c e s were t h e t h e n - p r e v a i l i n g m a r k e t p r i c e s . The c o n t r a c t

c a l l e d f o r t h e s e l l e r t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s on o r b e f o r e t h e

t e n t h t o f i f t e e n t h of November 1978, w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t

t h e c a l v e s were t o be weaned on hay and o a t s f o r a t l e a s t 45

days p r i o r t o delivery.

The s e l l e r e x e c u t e d t h e c o n t r a c t by and f o r h i m s e l f ,

even though t i t l e t o t h e c a l v e s was h e l d by h i s w i f e a l o n e .

The buyer e x e c u t e d t h e c o n t r a c t by and t h r o u g h h i s a g e n t ,

who s i g n e d "J. Miller L i v e s t o c k Co., by E a r l ~ u t l e r " . The

a g e n t gave t h e s e l l e r a check f o r $2,000 a s downpayment a t

t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n . There i s c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y a s t o

whether t h e a g e n t was t o l d a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i o n t h a t t h e

s e l l e r would n o t c a s h t h e check and t h a t t h e c a l v e s w e r e i n

f a c t owned by t h e s e l l e r ' s w i f e . The a g e n t was t o l d t h a t

t h e c a l v e s were l o c a t e d a t t h e s e l l e r ' s v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s

i n P a r k , Golden V a l l e y and Wheatland c o u n t i e s .

Three weeks a f t e r e x e c u t i o n , on August 1 4 , 1978, t h e

s e l l e r informed t h e a g e n t t h a t p e r s o n a l problems had a r i s e n ,
and t h e s e l l e r asked t h e a g e n t t o o b t a i n r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s .

The a g e n t r e p l i e d t h a t h e c o u l d a c q u i r e r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s .

S i x weeks a f t e r t e l l i n g t h e a g e n t of h i s problems, on

September 28, 1978, t h e s e l l e r phoned t h e buyer h i m s e l f and

informed t h e buyer t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d be made u n t i l

a f ter J a n u a r y 1, 197 9, and t h a t t h e a g e n t had i n d i c a t e d t h a t

r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s c o u l d be o b t a i n e d . The b u y e r , i n r e s p o n s e ,

informed t h e s e l l e r t h a t t h e c a l v e s had a l r e a d y been s o l d by

t h e buyer t o a f e e d e r i n Minnesota.

On October 1 6 , 1978, t h e s e l l e r m e t t h e b u y e r ' s a g e n t

i n B i l l i n g s , and a g a i n a d v i s e d him of t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of

d e l i v e r y u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1. The s e l l e r asked t h e a g e n t

whether r e p l a c e m e n t c a l v e s had been o b t a i n e d . The a g e n t

r e p l i e d t h a t he would a c q u i r e them t h a t same day.

Replacement c a l v e s w e r e a c q u i r e d , s o t h a t buyer w a s

a b l e t o f u l f i l l h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e f e e d e r i n Minnesota.

The day a f t e r t h e meeting i n B i l l i n g s , on October 1 7 ,

t h e buyer e n t e r e d i n t o a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of

t h e c a l v e s which he was buying from t h e s e l l e r . T h a t second

c o n t r a c t was made w i t h a F r e d Schwartz, who t h e s e l l e r c l a i m s

was a b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r of t h e buyer.

The buyer s e n t t h e s e l l e r a l e t t e r on October 29,

warning t h e s e l l e r o f t h e need t o comply w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t ,

and e x t e n d i n g t h e d a t e of d e l i v e r y by one month, t o December

15.

Heavy snow f e l l on November 8. The n e x t day, November

9, t h e s e l l e r r e t u r n e d t h e uncashed $2,000 check t o t h e

a g e n t , which check had been g i v e n a s downpayment. In a

l e t t e r accompanying t h e c h e c k , t h e s e l l e r s t a t e d t h a t de-

l i v e r y was i m p o s s i b l e , and r e q u e s t e d more t i m e ,

On November 1 3 , t h e buyer c a l l e d t h e s e l l e r and demanded

d e l i v e r y by December 1 5 . The s e l l e r r e p l i e d that delivery
by t h a t d a t e would b e i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e bad w e a t h e r .

The s e l l e r informed t h e buyer t h a t t h e c a l v e s were l o c a t e d

a t t h e s e l l e r ' s v a r i o u s p r o p e r t i e s , r e q u i r i n g a 160-mile

round t r i p t o f e e d them. The buyer s t a t e d t h a t he would

r e f u s e t o t a k e d e l i v e r y a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, b e c a u s e he wound up

h i s b u s i n e s s a t t h e end of t h e y e a r and b e c a u s e t h e c a l v e s

would be s o heavy by t h e n a s t o be c o n s i d e r e d y e a r l i n g s .

On November 1 7 , t h e s e l l e r informed t h e b u y e r ' s a t t o r n e y

t h a t d e l i v e r y would be unZikely by December 1 5 , due t o t h e

c a l v e s ' poor c o n d i t i o n and t o t h e bad w e a t h e r .

On November 1 8 , t h e s e l l e r s t a t e d t o t h e b u y e r ' s a t t o r n e y

by phone t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d be made u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y

1, b e c a u s e of t h e p e r i o d of t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r weaning and

weight gain.

The buyer f i l e d s u i t on December 8 , p r a y i n g f o r s p e c i f i c

performance o r f o r damages i n t h e e v e n t t h e s e l l e r f a i l e d t o

d e l i v e r by December 15.

The s e l l e r h i r e d p e r s o n s t o plow h i s r a n c h r o a d , and

a f t e r two days of plowing was a b l e t o t r u c k o u t some c a l v e s .

E i g h t e e n of t h e c a l v e s w e r e s o l d i n a n unweaned c o n d i t i o n on

December 1 5 i n B i l l i n g s . The remaining 72 c a l v e s w e r e

weaned and g r a i n f e d f o r 45 d a y s , and w e r e s o l d i n B i l l i n g s

o v e r f o u r s e p a r a t e d a t e s i n J a n u a r y and F e b r u a r y 1979, f o r

p r i c e s of up t o $1 p e r pound. A l l money was p a i d t o t h e

s e l l e r ' s w i f e , t h e owner of r e c o r d .

The s e l l e r f i l e d a motion t o j o i n a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e

p a r t y and a motion t o d i s m i s s on J a n u a r y 18. The " i n d i s -

p e n s a b l e p a r t y " was a p p a r e n t l y t h e b u y e r ' s a g e n t . ~earing

o n t h e motion was h e l d on F e b r u a r y 1. No r u l i n g was made.

On F e b r u a r y 9 t h e s e l l e r f i l e d h i s answer, a f f i r m a t i v e l y

a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e s u i t was b a r r e d b e c a u s e of t h e b u y e r ' s
f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e Montana f i c t i t i o u s name r e g i s t r a t i o n

statutes.

On August 6 , 1979, t h e s e l l e r moved f o r summary judgment,

based upon a l l e g e d v o i d n e s s of t h e c o n t r a c t due t o t h e

s e l l e r ' s n o t owning t h e c a l v e s . A h e a r i n g was h e l d b u t no

r u l i n g w a s made.

The s e l l e r f i l e d a n o t h e r motion f o r summary judgment on

March 25, 1980, based upon a n a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

N h e a r i n g was e v e r h e l d .
o

Nonjury t r i a l was h e l d on A p r i l 3 and 1 5 , 1980. The

D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r t h e buyer i n t h e amount

of $6,492.50, t o g e t h e r w i t h c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s .

The s e l l e r a p p e a l s .

1. FICTITIOUS NAME

The a p p e l l a n t , s e l l e r , a l l e g e d , a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e

d e f e n s e i n h i s answer, t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s a c t i o n i s b a r r e d f o r

f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r t h e f i c t i t i o u s name "J. M i l l e r L i v e s t o c k

Co.", a s r e q u i r e d by former s e c t i o n 30-13-111, MCA, 1978,

i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h i s c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d ( J u l y 2 0 ,

1978) b u t s i n c e r e p e a l e d (Sec. 1 8 , Ch. 260, L a w s of Montana,

1979). The former s t a t u t e was q u i t e o l d , and had been

c o n s t r u e d and a p p l i e d s e v e r a l t i m e s . Generally, t h i s Court

h e l d t h a t i f a b u s i n e s s name f a i r l y d i s c l o s e d t h e t r u e names

of a l l p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e n no compliance

w i t h t h e s t a t u t e was n e c e s s a r y ; and, t h a t t h e d u t y w a s on

t h e defendant a s s e r t i n g t h e bar t o a f f i r m a t i v e l y prove l a c k

of compliance. Canonica v . S t . George ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 64 Mont. 200,

205, 206, 208 P . 607, 608; C r o f t v . Bain ( 1 9 1 4 ) , 49 Mont.

484, 489, 143 P . 960, 962. The s e l l e r h a s p l a i n l y f a i l e d t o

c a r r y h i s burden of p r o o f . Although he r e f e r s t o t h e a g e n t

and t h e e a s t e r n f e e d e r a s b u y e r ' s " p a r t n e r s " t h r o u g h o u t t h e
p l e a d i n g s , t r a n s c r i p t and b r i e f , t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no

e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t anyone b e s i d e s John 0 . M i l l e r h a s any
i n t e r e s t i n t h e b u s i n e s s "J. M i l l e r L i v e s t o c k c o . " ~t i s

n o t enough f o r t h e s e l l e r t o merely c l a i m t h a t h e i s w i t h o u t

knowledge o r t h a t he h a s r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e s t a t u s

of t h e b u s i n e s s . C r o f t v . Bain, s u p r a . The b u s i n e s s name

h e r e f a i r l y d i s c l o s e s t h e name of t h e p e r s o n i n t e r e s t e d i n

the business. Because t h e s e l l e r f a i l e d t o p r o v e h i s a l l e g a -

t i o n s , any e r r o r s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n f a i l i n g t o r u l e upon

h i s motions were h a r m l e s s , a s t h e motions s h o u l d have been d e n i e d .

2 . WHETHER T E CONTRACT I S V O I D
H

T h e s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t of J u l y 2 0 , 1978, i s

v o i d due t o t h e f a c t t h a t he d i d n o t own t h e c a l v e s a t t h e

t i m e of e x e c u t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h e c o n t r a c t i s wholly i m p o s s i b l e

and u n l a w f u l a s p r o s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 28-2-603, MCA.

The m e r e f a c t t h a t a p a r t y c o n t r a c t s t o s e l l something

he d o e s n o t own d o e s n o t r a i s e t h e d e f e n s e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y .

B a r r e t t v. Ballard (1980), -Mont. -, 622 P.2d 180, 184,

37 St.Rep. 2038, 2 0 4 1 . The burden of p r o v i n g i m p o s s i b i l i t y

rests on t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e d e f e n s e ; such p a r t y must

d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he took v i r t u a l l y e v e r y a c t i o n w i t h i n h i s

powers t o perform h i s d u t i e s under t h e c o n t r a c t . Smith v.

Zepp ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 358, 365-366, 567 P.2d 923, 927. The

s e l l e r o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e a s t o why i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r

him t o o b t a i n h i s w i f e ' s c o n s e n t t o t h e s a l e o r t o buy h e r

out. "The o b j e c t of a c o n t r a c t must be l a w f u l when t h e con-

t r a c t i s made and p o s s i b l e . . . by t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t i s

t o be performed." S e c t i o n 28-2-602, MCA. The s e l l e r h a s

f a i l e d t o show t h a t i t was i m p o s s i b l e f o r him t o o b t a i n t h e

calves f o r delivery. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r u l e

upon t h e s e l l e r ' s motion f o r summary judgment on t h i s ground

i s h a r m l e s s because i t s h o u l d have been d e n i e d .
3. BUYER'S R I G H T TO RELY

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s c o m p l a i n t s o u g h t

damages due t o t h e b u y e r ' s d e t r i m e n t a l r e l i a n c e upon t h e

c o n t r a c t , i n t h a t t h e buyer had o b l i g a t e d h i m s e l f t o r e s e l l

t h e c a l v e s t o a n e a s t e r n f e e d e r , which o b l i g a t i o n t h e buyer

i s now u n a b l e t o f u l f i l l and f o r which t h e buyer i s l i a b l e .

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t , based upon t h e b u y e r ' s own p l e a d i n g s ,

t h e buyer c a n n o t r e c o v e r because he c o u l d - d e t r i m e n t a l l y
not

r e l y on t h e c o n t r a c t ; t h e s e l l e r had informed t h e

buyer on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h a t t h e s e l l e r would n o t be a b l e

t o f u l f i l l the contract. T h i s argument i s b e s i d e t h e p o i n t .

Damages were u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d on t h e s i m p l e b a s i s of

d i f f e r e n c e between m a r k e t p r i c e s on t h e d a t e of d e l i v e r y and

t h e d a t e of e x e c u t i o n , a s p r o v i d e d by Montana's Uniform Com-

m e r c i a l Code ( s e c t i o n 30-2-713, MCA) .
I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s method of r e s o l v i n g

damages d i d n o t conform p r e c i s e l y w i t h t h e b u y e r ' s c o m p l a i n t ,

b u t the c o u r t ' s a c t i o n w a s proper. A l l p l e a d i n g s s h a l l be s o

construed a s t o do s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . Rule 8 ( f ) , 3I.R.Civ.P.

The c o u r t s s h o u l d " l o o k t o t h e c l a i m a s a whole, t o the

s u b j e c t w i t h which i t d e a l s , t o t h e r e a s o n and s p i r i t of t h e

a l l e g a t i o n s i n a s c e r t a i n i n g i t s r e a l purpose. I f such

purpose c a n r e a s o n a b l y be s a i d t o b e w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of t h e

l a n g u a g e u s e d , t h a t p u r p o s e should be honored." Hidden

Hollow Ranch v. C o l l i n s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 321, 325, 326,

406 P.2d 365, 368. The purpose and s p i r i t behind t h e b u y e r ' s

c o m p l a i n t i s t o r e c o v e r f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , and damages

based upon t h e changes i n market p r i c e s a r e w i t h i n t h e s c o p e

of t h e c o m p l a i n t .

4: L C O CONSIDERATION AND LACK O MUTUALITY OF OBLIGATION
AK F F

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n and m u t u a l i t y

of o b l i g a t i o n a r e e s s e n t i a l t o a c o n t r a c t , t h a t t h e ~ i s t r i c t
C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s f a i l t o s e t f o r t h t h e s e

e l e m e n t s , t h a t t h e buyer h a s s u f f e r e d no l e g a l d e t r i m e n t i n

t h e n a t u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t h i s l a t e r

c o n t r a c t f o r r e s a l e of t h e c a l v e s t o a n e a s t e r n f e e d e r h a s

n o t been e n f o r c e d by t h e f e e d e r . The s e l l e r f a i l s t o recog-

n i z e t h a t mutual p r o m i s e s a r e v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The

buyer promised t o pay t h e s e l l e r a c e r t a i n amount i n r e t u r n

f o r t h e s e l l e r ' s promise t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s on a c e r t a i n

d a t e i n a c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n . The buyer d e l i v e r e d a $2,000

check as downpayment on h i s promise. Mutual p r o m i s e s a l o n e

a r e enough t o c o n s t i t u t e v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S e c t i o n 28-2-

801, MCA; s e e 1 7 C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s , SS97, 98. In addition,

t h e buyer gave t h e check a s downpayment, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e

s e l l e r ' s l a t e r r e t u r n of t h a t check. These f a c t s a r e u n d i s -

p u t e d , and c o n s t i t u t e s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t

Court ' s conclusions.

5: EXCUSE O PERFORMANCE
F

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e shows h e i n t e n d e d

t o d e l i v e r t h e c a l v e s by t h e extended d a t e of December 1 5 ,

b u t was excused from performance b e c a u s e of t h e bad w e a t h e r .

The t r i a l c o u r t , however, chose t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e l l e r

d i d n o t s o i n t e n d , which b e l i e f i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s

s e t f o r t h i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of i s s u e no. 6 , below. The

f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and w i l l n o t be s e t

aside. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.

6: IMPOSSIBILITY O PERFORMANCE
F

The s e l l e r a s s e r t s a n o t h e r d e f e n s e of i m p o s s i b i l i t y due

t o h a r s h weather c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e t i m e s e t f o r d e l i v e r y .

The t r i a l c o u r t a p p a r e n t l y found t h e s e l l e r d i d n o t i n t e n d t o -

d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 i n any c a s e . Such a f i n d i n g i s

s u p p o r t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : t h e s e l l e r had been

t e l l i n g t h e buyer s i n c e September 28 t h a t no d e l i v e r y c o u l d
b e made u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1; t h e s e l l e r had been i n t i m a t i n g

a n u n w i l l i n g n e s s o r i n a b i l i t y t o comply w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t

s i n c e a t l e a s t August 1 4 ; a n d , t h e s e l l e r , i n o r d e r t o wean

t h e cows f o r t h e a g r e e d 45-day p e r i o d , would have had t o

s t a r t weaninq by O c t o b e r 31 i n o r d e r t o d e l i v e r by December

15. O c t o b e r 31 was n i n e d a y s b e f o r e t h e snow. There i s

adequate evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclu-

sions.

7: EXCUSE O PERFORMANCE BY REASON OF REJECTION
F

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e buyer w r o n g f u l l y r e j e c t e d

d e l i v e r y a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 and such r e j e c t i o n made p e r f o r m a n c e

i m p o s s i b l e due t o t h e b u y e r ' s h i n d r a n c e . The D i s t r i c t

C o u r t found t h a t t h e s e l l e r had n e v e r d e l i v e r e d a n y c a l v e s

( f i n d i n g no. 1 3 ) , and c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e s e l l e r

t o make even p a r t i a l p e r f o r m a n c e amounted t o a c o m p l e t e b r e a c h

of t h e c o n t r a c t . The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i -

dence t h a t t h e seller f a i l e d t o t e n d e r d e l i v e r y a f t e r January

1; t h a t a l l h e d i d was s t a t e on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t h a t

h e would b e u n a b l e t o d e l i v e r u n t i l a f t e r J a n u a r y 1; and t h a t

t h e b u y e r a l w a y s demanded d e l i v e r y by t h e a g r e e d d a t e . After

J a n u a r y 1 t h e s e l l e r took t h e c a l v e s t o B i l l i n g s and s o l d

them a t a n i n c r e a s e d p r i c e w i t h o u t o f f e r i n g them t o t h e

buyer. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s .

8: D M GS
A A E

The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e b u y e r n e v e r p u r c h a s e d r e p l a c e -

ment c a l v e s i n o r d e r t o f u l f i l l h i s c o n t r a c t f o r r e s a l e t o

t h e e a s t e r n f e e d e r ; a s a consequence, t h e f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e

damages must be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . But damages w e r e c a l c u -

l a t e d on t h e b a s i s of change i n m a r k e t p r i c e a l o n e , p u r s u a n t

t o s e c t i o n 30-2-713, MCA. The b u y e r ' s c a p a c i t y t o f u l f i l l

h i s own c o n t r a c t f o r resale i s n o t a n i s s u e h e r e .

9: ATTORNEY FEES
 The s e l l e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e buyer i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o

attorney fees. The buyer a d m i t s t h a t a t t o r n e y f e e s can o n l y

be g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o e x p r e s s s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l

p r o v i s i o n , b u t a r g u e s t h a t where a p a r t y a c t s i n bad f a i t h

d u r i n g l i t i g a t i o n and d i s c o v e r y , a t t o r n e y f e e s s h o u l d be

awarded t o cover t h e o t h e r p a r t y ' s u n n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s i n

d e a l i n g w i t h t h e bad f a i t h . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t make

any f i n d i n g s of bad f a i t h . I n h i s c o m p l a i n t t h e buyer s o u g h t

damages f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . A s s t a t e d by t h i s C o u r t i n

Masonovich v . School D i s t r i c t No. 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 138, 1 4 1 ,

" ' G e n e r a l l y , t h e r e c a n be no r e c o v e r y a s damages of
t h e expenses of l i t i g a t i o n and a t t o r n e y f e e s u n l e s s
a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t . ' "

A s t h e r e i s no c o n t r a c t o r s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s

i n t h i s c a s e , a t t o r n e y f e e s may n o t be awarded.

CONCLUSION

W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x c e p t as t o

attorney fees. W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment on t h a t i s s u e .

W concur:
e