Brown v. American Bank of Commerce
Decision Date | 10 June 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 8445,8445 |
Parties | James B. BROWN and George Mossman, Partners, d/b/a Albuquerque Data Processing, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN BANK OF COMMERCE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Appellant American Bank of Commerce, hereinafter referred to as 'Bank,' appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, James B. Brown and George Mossman, partners, d/b/a Albuquerque Data Porcessing, hereinafter referred to as 'ADP.'
The complaint alleged that the Bank was obligated, under the terms of an agreement dated February 28, 1963, to have certain work performed by ADP; that the Bank failed to use the services of ADP as was required; and that, as a result thereof, ADP was damaged in the amount of $4,714.32. The Bank answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. The cause was tried to the court on the parties' stipulation and the trial court granted judgment to ADP in the sum of $4,714.32.
The parties entered into an agreement dated February 28, 1963, and a supplement thereto dated March 1, 1963. The pertinent provisions of the February 28, 1963, contract provide:
'WHEREAS, Bank desires to have ADP prepare and deliver completed report of demand deposits, savings deposits, General Ledger and installment loans of depositors of the Bank, customers or other persons in some way connected with Bank and to furnish Bank such information as shall be requested by Bank from time to time, and
'WHEREAS, ADP has all proper and adequate facilities to accurately, without error or omission, produce reports of demand deposits, savings deposits, General Ledger and installment loans of depositors of Bank and information as shall be requested by Bank as to customers or other persons in some way connected with Bank.
'NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and the sums to be paid by Bank to ADP, it is agreed as follows:
* * *
'* * *
'* * *
'* * *
* * *
'* * *
The trial court found as fact the matters stipulated by the parties as follows: That the agreement was in effect and being performed by ADP when the Bank commenced business, and during the period in which items in sufficient amount to pay ADP a compensation of $375 monthly, or more, were not being grnerated by the business of the Bank, it paid to ADP monthly $375; that on December 2, 1965, the Bank wrote and delivered to ADP a letter stating that the contract between the parties would be terminated effective May 31, 1966, and that after March 31, 1966 the Bank would process all items on its own equipment and pay ADP only the sum provided for in paragraph 6 of the agreement, which was $375 monthly; that, in response to said letter, ADP advised the Bank by letter dated December 21, 1965, that cancellation of the agreement was accommodated by its terms, but reduction of the amount payable after March 31, 1966, was not accommodated by the agreement and that, therefore, ADP would expect payment on a per item basis, as provided for in the agreement, to the date of effective termination; that from the period March 11 to May 31, 1966, the Bank processed 393,002 items; and that had these items been processed by ADP it would have resulted in net receipts to ADP in the sum of $4,714.32. The court also found, in accordance with the stipulation, that the Bank installed its own electronic data processing system which was different from the system under which ADP was operating; that the system used by ADP was grounded upon key punch cards; that under the system initiated by the Bank, it no longer had use or used key punch cards, but rather was grounded upon the use of tapes; that in the judgment of the Bank, the system initiated by the Bank was more efficient and less costly than the system used by ADP; and that the reports which the Bank system offered were of greater benefit to the Bank.
The trial court concluded that the agreement contained a provision that the 'Bank shall pay to ADP a minimum sum of $375.00 each month for the service performed,' and required payment to ADP of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Service Co. v. DIAMOND D. CONST. CO.
...the dispute within the time remaining prior to the date on which the termination becomes effective. See Brown v. Am. Bank of Commerce, 79 N.M. 222, 226, 441 P.2d 751, 755 (1968) (holding that a termination provision requiring ninety-days notice required that both parties continue to abide b......
-
State ex rel. Udall v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
...Cir.1980). In construing a contract, the law favors a reasonable rather than unreasonable interpretation. Brown v. American Bank of Commerce, 79 N.M. 222, 441 P.2d 751 (1968). Contracts in violation of our public policy, as manifest in positive law, are unenforceable. DiGesu v. Weingardt, 9......
- State ex rel. Speer v. District Court for Sierra County
-
Bock v. Salt Creek Midstream LLC
...of the whole contract." Bank of New Mexico v. Sholer, 102 N.M. 78, 79, 691 P.2d 465, 466 (N.M. 1984) (citing Brown v. American Bank of Commerce, 79 N.M. 222, 441 P.2d 751 (1968)). B. The Arbitration Agreement12 The parties agree that whether Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are subject ......