Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 00SC52.
Decision Date | 11 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00SC52.,00SC52. |
Citation | 25 P.3d 1187 |
Parties | AGRITRACK, INC., a Colorado corporation, Petitioner, v. DeJOHN HOUSEMOVING, INC., a Colorado corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Yates & Leal, LLP, Carlos Leal, Russell E. Yates, Phillip J. Frazee, Jan Kneisel, Suzanne V. Suher Katchmar, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Law Office of David M. Herrera, David M. Herrera, Fort Collins, CO, Attorney for Respondent.
This is a breach of contract case. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., the respondent, contracted with the Cheyenne Airport Board to demolish and remove approximately fifty housing units in order to allow the Airport Board to construct a sound buffer at the end of a runway. DeJohn, a house moving company, subcontracted with the petitioner, Agritrack, Inc., to do the excavation, demolition, and grading services. DeJohn intended to move most of the housing units to a new subdivision.
DeJohn was not able to complete the work on schedule. Agritrack filed a civil action against DeJohn in the Weld County District Court, seeking damages under the subcontract and also on the basis of a theory of implied contract. The jury found DeJohn had breached both the subcontract and the implied contract between the parties, and awarded Agritrack damages. The district court also awarded Agritrack its attorney's fees pursuant to a provision in the subcontract. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on the issues of liability and damages, but reversed the award of attorney's fees. Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., No. 98CA1843, slip op. at 10-12 (Colo. App. Dec. 2, 1999) ( ). Agritrack filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking this court's review of the attorney's fees issues only.1 We granted the petition for writ of certiorari, and we now reverse. We hold that the district court properly awarded attorney's fees on the breach of express contract claim and on the implied contract claim.
DeJohn was the successful bidder and became the general contractor for the Airport Board under a federal contract calling for the demolition or removal of a fifty-unit housing subdivision, which included excavation of the surrounding streets, curbs, and utilities. DeJohn contracted with a housing developer to remove the house structures and to relocate them to a new subdivision in Cheyenne. On August 15, 1995, DeJohn entered into a written contract with Agritrack (the express contract or the subcontract) for Agritrack to perform excavation, demolition, and grading services. The subcontract referred to the contract between DeJohn and the Airport Board. The subcontract provided, in part:
The provision at the heart of this case, Article 9, stated, "Should judicial intervention be necessary to resolve disputes between the parties, the party found liable will be responsible for all attorney's fees, costs, and interest."
Agritrack's performance of the contract was delayed for reasons that Agritrack claimed were DeJohn's fault. Moreover, Agritrack asserted that they had performed certain work in addition to that specified in the subcontract. According to Agritrack, DeJohn promised to recompense Agritrack at a later date for that additional work. Finally, DeJohn failed to pay Agritrack the last payment due under the subcontract. Agritrack filed a civil action in the district court, requesting damages under the subcontract and damages for the additional work under a theory of implied contract.2 Jury Instruction No. 1 summarized Agritrack's claims as follows:
The plaintiff claims:
The same jury instruction summarized the defendant's position on the amount unpaid under the subcontract: "That while the Defendant owes Plaintiff an additional $26,263.00, less amounts for work not performed, payment under the contract is not yet due." DeJohn also asserted that they did not delay the performance of the contract for five and one-half months; that Agritrack did not perform any additional work under the contract between the parties; that Agritrack provided no additional material, equipment, and labor to DeJohn; and that no agreement was ever reached between the parties subsequent to the subcontract.
As pertinent to the issues before us, DeJohn asserted affirmative defenses that Agritrack's claims were barred by waiver, laches, and estoppel, the failure to comply with conditions precedent, the failure to mitigate damages; and finally that any damages Agritrack may have suffered were the result of its own actions or inaction.
Instruction No. 11 presented Agritrack's breach of express contract claim and DeJohn's defenses:
(Emphasis added.) The jurors were also instructed on Agritrack's claim of breach of implied contract in Jury Instruction No. 25:
The jury found in favor of Agritrack on both of the claims. With respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tassell v. United Mktg. Group Llc
...binding, a contract requires a “meeting of the minds” and a manifestation of “mutual assent.” Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 25 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo.2001) (a valid contract is created when there is a “meeting of the minds” between the parties as to all essential terms of the ......
-
Steele v. Stallion Rockies Ltd., Civil Action No. 14–cv–02376–CMA–BNB
...Springs, No. 07–cv–00753– MSK–BNB, 2008 WL 511890, at *3 (D.Colo. February 22, 2008) (citing Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 25 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo.2001) ). A promise that forms the basis of an enforceable contract "must be sufficiently specific to ‘provide a basis for determ......
-
Loveland Essential Group Llc v. Grommon Farms Inc.
...contention. Buyer's contention presents an issue of contract interpretation, which we review de novo. Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 25 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo.2001); Newflower Market, Inc. v. Cook, 229 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo.App.2010). Paragraph 5.01(n) of the RPA provided, in r......
-
Millennium Funding, Inc. v. Private Internet Access, Inc.
... ... See ... id. at 134; Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, ... Inc. , 25 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo ... ...
-
Enforcing Oral Contracts
...v. McCormack, 180 P.2d 863 (1947) (enforcing oral agreement to forbear from foreclosure) [3] Agritrack, Inc. v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 25 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2001). [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 255 P.3d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 2011). [7] Buckles Mgmt., LLC v. Inve......