Ashby v. Hubbard

• Decision Date: 16 April 1979
• Docket Number: No. 12677,12677
• Citation: 593 P.2d 402,100 Idaho 67
• Parties: Keith D. ASHBY and Joyce Ashby, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elbert HUBBARD and Saundra Hubbard, d/b/a Hubbard Packing Company, LaMar Barnes and Rory Barnes, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 402

593 P.2d 402

100 Idaho 67

Keith D. ASHBY and Joyce Ashby, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elbert HUBBARD and Saundra Hubbard, d/b/a Hubbard Packing Company, LaMar Barnes and Rory Barnes, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 12677.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 16, 1979.

Howard L. Armstrong, Jr., Pocatello, for plaintiffs-appellants. Williams & Castleton, Preston, Archie W. Service and Ron Kerl of Green, Service, Gasser & Kerl, Pocatello, for defendants-respondents.

SMITH, Judge Pro Tem.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants LaMar and Rory Barnes in a contract action involving the purchase, sale, and processing of a calf. The defendants LaMar and Rory Barnes raised the affirmative defense of an accord and satisfaction prior to the institution of the suit, and later moved for a summary judgment on that ground. The trial court granted the motion and a judgment was entered dismissing Rory and LaMar Barnes from the action with prejudice. It appears from the record that there are disputed material issues of fact for trial and therefore the summary judgment was improperly entered.

The established facts of this case show that on or about the 28th or 29th of August, 1974, the plaintiff Keith Ashby went to the defendant Barnes' farm to inquire as to a steer calf raised by Rory Barnes as a 4-H project. The parties at that time entered into an oral agreement whereby the plaintiffs would purchase the calf for $0.45 per pound, live weight, and defendants would deliver the calf to the Hubbard Packing Company for processing. The plaintiffs in their amended complaint further alleged that the defendant LaMar Barnes made express representations that the calf had been grain fed and that it was of superior quality. The defendant denies any representations and warranties were made.

The animal was delivered to the Hubbards, processed, and then delivered to the plaintiffs pursuant to the agreement. After the Ashbys received the processed meat, they withheld payment saying that the meat was stringy, had a foul odor, and was impossible to eat.

In either December of 1974 or January of 1975, the defendant LaMar Barnes visited the plaintiff Keith Ashby in Pocatello to inquire as to the reason for the nonpayment of the price. At this point, what transpired between the parties is unclear, and disputed by the parties' affidavits and by the briefs before this Court. One fact is clear, however. At the conclusion of their discussion, the plaintiffs gave the defendants a check for $314.00, calculated at $0.43 per pound.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against Elbert and Joyce Hubbard, d/b/a Hubbard Packing Co., alleging they had negligently or willfully substituted a poorer grade beef than that which had been delivered to them for processing. About one year later the complaint was amended to include LaMar Barnes and his son Rory Barnes as defendants on the grounds they had breached express warranties and misrepresented the quality of the calf they had sold to the Ashbys on the oral contract.

The second amended complaint filed in this action claimed special damages to plaintiffs of $414.20, consisting of processing charges $47.20, locker rental $28.00, transportation charges $20.00, and phone calls $5.00, thus leaving $314.00 for the beef. At $0.43 per pound, the beef would weigh in at 730 pounds alive. The plaintiffs also seek $10,000 general damages for the great distress of body and mind in attempting to eat the purported peculiarly odoriferous inedible beef, plus $10,000 as punitive damages, plus $5,000 in reasonable attorney's fees, together with all costs.

The defendants Barnes moved for summary judgment on May 23, 1977. It was the defendant's contention that the payment of the $314.00 was an accord and satisfaction releasing the defendants Barnes from any further liability on the contract. The plaintiffs alleged they were simply paying the price requested and did not consider that by doing so they were making an agreement to a compromise or an accord and satisfaction. The district court granted the defendants' motion on the ground that during the conversation between LaMar Barnes and Keith Ashby, the parties agreed to an accord and satisfaction, and from this summary judgment the plaintiffs have appealed. The plaintiffs-appellants make three separate assignments of error. First, they allege not all the requisite elements for an accord and satisfaction were present in the record. Second, they claim there were unresolved material issues of fact that should be submitted to a jury and the district court invaded the province of the jury by entering a summary judgment as a matter of law. Third, they claim that a summary judgment was improper because the plaintiffs were merely trying to mitigate damages.

However, the only substantial question presented by this appeal is whether there existed genuine issues of material fact which made the entry of a summary judgment improper. Summary judgment is properly granted only when the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I.R.C.P. 56(c). In determining whether an issue of material fact is in dispute, facts should be liberally construed in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought and all doubts are to be resolved against the moving party. Ed Sparks & Sons v. Joe Campbell Constr. Co., 96 Idaho 454, 530 P.2d 938 (1974); Schaefer v. Elswood Trailer Sales, 95 Idaho 654, 516 P.2d 1168 (1973). Since the defendants moved for summary judgment in this case, the trial court should have liberally construed all facts in favor of the Ashbys when determining whether material issues of fact existed. This Court has stated that a motion for summary judgment must be denied if the evidence is such that conflicting...