Caron v. Andrew
| Decision Date | 03 June 1955 |
| Citation | 133 Cal.App.2d 412,284 P.2d 550 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Fred J. CARON and John B. Oliver, copartners doing business as Caron & Oliver Equipment Center, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Parley G. ANDREW, John Doe Andrew, Individually and as copartners doing business as Andrew Brothers, Farm Service Company, a corporation, Farm Service Company, a copartnership, etc., et al., Defendants, Farm Service Company, a corporation, Appellant. Civ. 8706. |
Aiken, Kramer & Aiken, Oakland, for appellant.
G. Clayton Wilkinson, Tracy, for respondent.
Much of the background of this appeal is reflected in our opinion in Caron v. Andrew, 284 P.2d 544.
This appeal is from a judgment rendered in favor of respondents Caron and Oliver, copartners, against Farm Service Company, a corporation. The judgment rests upon breach of an implied contract for the payment of the reasonable rental value of two pieces of equipment suitable for use in leveling land. The equipment had been leased by respondents to Andrew Brothers. Apparently the arrangement was what is commonly called a purchase lease agreement, whereunder a rental is charged for use of equipment and the payments made are credited upon the purchase price, the title passing when the payments aggregate that price. Andrew Brothers had been using the equipment on work in or near Stockton, California, when they entered into a contract with Grimes and Picchi, owners of a tract of real property, for the leveling of that property to fit it for farming. Appellant Farm Service Company guaranteed their performance of that contract. Andrew Brothers informed respondents that they wanted to move the machinery to the farm job, and respondents, consenting, wrote a letter to them reading as follows:
'We are herein reviewing the amounts showing as a balance on the DW 10 'Jeep' and the converted Catipillar Tractor D8. Also the Mississippi Wagon.
'Our books show a balance of $5635.00 on the Jeep and Mississippi Wagon. $4010.00 on the D8.
'We are to receive $2.50 per hr. of running time as payment on the DW 10 'Jeep' also $2.00 per running hr. on the D8.
'It is understood that this rental is to apply on the purchase of this above mentioned equipment.
'All payments are to be made direct to this office.'
Andrew Brothers entered upon the performance of the land leveling contract and moved the subject machinery to the work, where it was used for a period extending from August 15, 1950, to October 25, 1950. At that time Andrew Brothers ceased work on their contract and, as the court found, appellant Farm Service Company took over the work of completing the leveling contract with the consent of Grimes and Picchi. Pursuant to those arrangements appellant went upon the property. The subject machinery was there. Some repairs were needed to fit the machines for further use and appellant undertook to make them. There was testimony by Parley Andrew, one of the Andrew Brothers, that under these new arrangements he was employed by appellant to supervise the completion of the leveling contract; and that he told respondents that appellant had undertaken to complete the work and wanted to use the machinery for that purpose and would pay for such use. Appellant knew that Andrew Brothers had used the machinery on the job, and that it belonged to respondents. Before repairs could be completed and before any leveling work was begun heavy rains set in and the machinery was placed on high ground for its protection. Mr. Dixon, an executive officer of appellant, had given instructions to one Aksland, a man skilled in land leveling whom appellant had retained as general supervisor for the work, to use the equipment that was on the job. Shortly after the rains began the river levee bordering the subject property broke, partially inundating the land, and, in a short while and before any leveling work was begun by appellant, further breaks occurred, completing the inundation. Appellant itself, in turn, abandoned the contract on February 24, 1951. Appellant returned one piece of equipment to respondents on February 10, 1951, but did not return the other until August 10, 1951. Prior to that date and on March 5, 1951, respondents began this action to obtain compensation for the retention and use of its equipment.
The trial court found that respondents were in the business of rental and repair of farm and construction equipment; that on August 14, 1950, they had delivered the equipment to Andrew Brothers for use in the leveling work; that Andrew Brothers used it during the period from August 15th to October 25th of 1950; that the equipment was not used on the leveling job after October 25th; that the equipment had been turned over to Andrew Brothers under a rental purchase agreement, confirmed on August 14, 1950, by the letter hereinbefore quoted; that the reasonable rental value of the D-8 caterpillar tractor was $700 per month and that the reasonable rental value of the DW-10 caterpillar tractor was $950 per month; that on November 15, 1950, appellant took possession of the machinery and retained it for its use and benefit with the knowledge and assent of respondents; that appellant knew the equipment belonged to respondents and had been rented by them to Andrew Brothers and that respondents expected to be paid for its use; that 'under all of the circumstances of said taking and use of said equipment, said defendant [appellant] impliedly agreed with plaintiffs [respondents] to pay them the reasonable rental value of the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. v. New Motor Vehicle Bd.
... ... [194 Cal.App.3d 84] Michele C. Kennedy, Andrew H. Swartz, Spiering & Swartz, Monterey, for real party in interest ... [194 Cal.App.3d 85] SMITH, Associate Justice ... 213, 447 P.2d 325.) Whether the conduct of the parties manifested such an agreement is ordinarily an issue for the trier of fact. (Caron v. Andrew (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 412, 416, 284 P.2d 550.) ... In the case at bar, the administrative hearing officer (and by ... ...
-
Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transportation Co.
...are consensual in nature, the substantial difference being in the made of proof by which they are established (Caron v. Andrew (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 412, 417, 284 P.2d 550). While an implied in fact contract may be inferred from the conduct, situation or mutual relation of the parties, the ......
-
Employers Mut. Cas. v. United Fire & Cas.
...Lalonde, 31 F.2d 673, 674 (9th Cir.1929) (finding surety who took over work from contractor may be liable in excess of penalty bond); Caron, 284 P.2d at 550 (finding surety became liable for the costs of completing the project "without reference to the amount for which it had signed as sure......
-
Coast Loans, Inc. v. Scripps Investment & Loans, Inc., D049453 (Cal. App. 12/24/2008)
...be drawn from the evidence which is not in conflict, a question of fact is presented for decision of the trial court.'" (Caron v. Andrew (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 412, 416.) C. Indulging all interferences in Coast's favor and strictly construing Scripps' evidence as we must, we conclude the evi......