Baur v. Pacific Finance Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 9742,9742 |
| Citation | 14 Utah 2d 283,383 P.2d 397 |
| Parties | d 283 Ones F. BAUR, d/b/a Ogden Trailer Sales, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION, a corporation, and Marathon Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert S. Spooner, Ogden, for appellant.
Callister & Kesler, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Ones F. Baur, d/b/a Ogden Trailer Sales, seeks to recover under a policy issued by Marathon Insurance Company and also against Pacific Finance Corporation for damages which resulted to a trailer he had sold and which had to be repossessed.
From an order dismissing his complaint as to both defendants, plaintiff appeals.
As we have heretofore declared, the granting of a motion to dismiss, which deprives the party of the privilege of presenting his evidence, is a harsh measure which courts should grant only when it clearly appears that taking the view most favorable to the complaint and any facts which might properly be proved thereunder, no right to redress could be established; and unless it so clearly appears, doubt should be resolved in favor of allowing him the opportunity to present his proof. 1
The facts as the plaintiff contends them to be and in the light most favorable to his position are these:
Over a period of about five years there had been a course of dealing between plaintiff, selling trailers, and Pacific Finance, financing his contracts. The plaintiff would sell a trailer under a conditional sales contract which retained title in the seller and would assign the contract to Pacific Finance with recourse, that is, that plaintiff would guarantee payment of the contract. In the usual case, where the purchaser made the payments as specified, the plaintiff would hear nothing more about the matter. But if the purchaser defaulted, Pacific Finance would notify the plaintiff and require it to make good the contract under its recourse agreement.
The sales contract prohibited the purchaser from selling his interest, except upon written consent of the seller. It was the custom to adhere to this provision and whenever the trailer was resold to a different buyer before it was paid for, Baur's consent in writing was obtained.
On 4 September, 1958, Baur sold to Carl H. Phillips a 45-foot Leisure Home Trailer on this basis:
Cash Selling Price $5,870.80
Accessories 239.50
Utah Sales Tax 124.70
----------
$6,235.00
Registration Fee 3.50 $6,238.50
----------
Down Payment
Cash $ 672.00
Trailer Trade-In 1,000.00 $1,672.00 $4,566.50
---------- ---------
Insurance Premiums $ 240.00
Vendor's single interest for 60 months 47.50 287.50
--------- ---------
Unpaid Balance $4,854.00
Time Price Differential 1,771.80
---------
Total Balance $6,625.80
Some months later the original purchaser, Phillips, with the knowledge and consent of Pacific Finance, but without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, resold the trailer; first, to an unknown third party; and later again resold to one Charles Gorda. After payments had become delinquent about six months, Gorda either abandoned the trailer, or it was stolen from him, and it was found at Grand Canyon, Arizona. Pacific Finance had it picked up and taken to Flagstaff, Arizona, where it was left unlocked and unprotected for about 30 days. It was in a badly damaged condition due to a collision, vandalism and neglect, the details and the amount of which we are not now concerned. Plaintiff asserts that Pacific Finance had current knowledge of all of the foregoing facts, but that it was not until all of the above had transpired that he was notified that the trailer was abandoned at Grand Canyon, and that he must take it over, stand the damages and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colman v. Utah State Land Bd.
...basis, the issue should be resolved in favor of giving the party an opportunity to present its proof. Baur v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 14 Utah 2d 283, 284, 383 P.2d 397, 397 (1963). On this appeal, we look solely to the material allegations of Colman's complaint, not to the evidence presented at......
-
Burnett v. Utah Power & Light Co.
...Servs. Dep't of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 615 P.2d 1250, 1252 n. 1 (Utah 1980); Baur v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 14 Utah 2d 283, 284, 383 P.2d 397, 397 (Utah 1963); Liquor Control Comm'n v. Athas, 121 Utah 457, 460, 243 P.2d 441, 443 (1952).3 See, e.g., United Steel Worker......
-
St. Benedict's Development Co. v. St. Benedict's Hosp.
...resolved in favor of giving the party an opportunity to present its proof. Colman, 795 P.2d at 624 (citing Baur v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 14 Utah 2d 283, 284, 383 P.2d 397, 397 (1963)). Here, the trial court did not specifically address the question of whether the hospital breached its express......
-
Bailey v. Utah State Bar, 900116
...dismissed in favor of giving a party the opportunity to present its proof. Colman, 795 P.2d at 624 (citing Baur v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 14 Utah 2d 283, 284, 383 P.2d 397, 397 (1963)). The Baileys argue on appeal that the Bar has a duty to protect the public from attorneys known to practice n......