Bennett v. Price, 83CA0531
| Decision Date | 05 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83CA0531,83CA0531 |
| Citation | 692 P.2d 1138 |
| Parties | G. Milton BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank PRICE and Pebblewood Associates, a Colorado partnership, Defendants-Appellants. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Bill E. Landsberg, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert W. Johnson, Colorado Springs, for defendants-appellants.
G. Milton Bennett, purchaser, sued Frank Price and Pebblewood Associates, builders and sellers of townhomes, alleging that they had breached a contract to sell a townhome property to him. Following a jury trial, the purchaser was awarded $6,800 in damages for breach of contract, plus return of his $1,000 earnest money deposit. The sellers appeal, and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand with directions.
We first consider the sellers' assertion that the trial court improperly allowed the purchaser to introduce evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements which were at variance with the terms of the written purchase agreement. There was no error.
Prior to trial, the sellers filed motions to prohibit the purchaser from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements which varied, contradicted, modified, added to, or otherwise changed the clear and unequivocal terms of the purchase agreement. The trial court denied the motions, and permitted the purchaser to introduce parol evidence to explain the purpose and intent of ambiguous portions of the agreement.
It is true that, by well-established rule, when the language used is plain, its meaning clear, and no absurdity is involved, an agreement must be enforced as written. Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965). However, it is equally well settled that written contracts containing ambiguities, or unclear language or meaning, are to be construed in accordance with the intent of the parties. Leach v. LaGuardia, 163 Colo. 225, 429 P.2d 623 (1967).
The written purchase agreement, drafted by the sellers, starts out clearly enough:
"(3) This contract is expressly contingent upon the purchaser obtaining a loan equal to 90% of the purchase price at an interest rate not to exceed 12 1/2% per annum...."
However, later in that paragraph it is stated that: "Purchaser may procure his own financing." And, then the agreement contains these provisions:
Thus, while the first quoted portion of paragraph 3 places on the purchaser the requirement to obtain financing, the latter part of that paragraph and paragraphs 9 and 14 seemingly change that and indicate that the purchaser was to apply for a loan at a lender designated by the sellers rather than procuring his own financing. Hence, there were conflicting terms which created an ambiguity in the written agreement regarding the procuring of financing. Therefore, the trial court was correct in allowing the purchaser to introduce parol evidence to explain the purpose and intent of the ambiguous portions.
We do agree, however, with the sellers that the trial court erred in entering judgment for $6,800 compensatory damages in accordance with the jury verdict because the purchaser failed to present any competent or admissible evidence of damages for breach of contract.
The proper measure of damages for breach of a contract for sale of real property is the difference between the market value of the property and the purchase price contracted for, Sorenson v. Connelly, 36 Colo.App. 168, 536 P.2d 328 (1975). The party seeking to recover damages has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1999 -NMCA- 8, Jones v. Lee
...land sale contract, the burden is on that party to present competent evidence to support such claim for damages. See Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138, 1140 (Colo.Ct.App.1984). The rationale underlying the award of damages in a breach of contract case is to compensate the non-defaulting party......
-
Krane v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., Civ. A. No. 87-C-1873.
...agreement is clear on its face there is nothing to interpret it and it must be enforced as written." Johnson, at 266; Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138, 1139 (Colo.App.1984). Whether or not a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. Id. Additionally, it is a well-established ......
-
Mesa Sand and Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc.
...used in a contract is plain, its meaning clear, and no absurdity is involved, the contract must be enforced as written. Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138 (Colo.App.1984). The intent of the parties to a contract is to be determined primarily from the language of the document itself, and if the......
-
L & M ENTERPRISES v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., Civ. A. No. 87-C-1435.
...agreement is clear on its face there is nothing to interpret it and it must be enforced as written." Johnson, at 266; Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138, 1139 (Colo.App.1984). Whether or not a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. Id. The General Indemnity Agreement clearly......
-
Proving Covered Personal Property Loss Under a Homeowners Policy
...comparable sales prices rather than offering/listing prices when determining real property fair market value. Cf. Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138, 1140 (Colo.App. 1984) (real estate listing prices may tend to be inflated and may overstate the property value; the better reasoned rule is that......
-
Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses — Rule 701
...but it is speculative; and standing alone it does not bear a sufficient relationship to the fair market value. Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138 (Colo. App. 1984). • Evidence of an unaccepted offer to purchase land is not admissible to prove the value of the land. Realty Loans, Inc. v. McCoy,......
-
Who May Impeach — Rule 607
...but it is speculative, and standing alone it does not bear a sufficient relationship to the fair market value. Bennett v. Price, 692 P.2d 1138 (Colo. App. 1984). • The determination of the credibility, weight, and probative force accorded to a witness is within the sole discretion of the tr......