Continental Forest Products, Inc. v. Chandler Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 11019,11019
• Citation: 95 Idaho 739,518 P.2d 1201
• Parties: CONTINENTAL FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHANDLER SUPPLY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 1201

518 P.2d 1201

95 Idaho 739

CONTINENTAL FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHANDLER SUPPLY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11019.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 4, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1974.

Robert S. Campbell, Jr., of Pugsley, Hayes, Watkiss, Campbell & Cowley, Salt Lake City, Utah and Harold Q. Noack, Jr., Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Frank E. Chalfant, Jr., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

BAKES, Justice.

Continental Forest Products, Inc., the plaintiff-respondent, is an Oregon corporate lumber broker. As plaintiff, it instituted this action against Chandler Supply Company, also a corporation, the defendant-appellant, seeking recovery of $10,231.45, plus interest for two carloads of plywood allegedly sold defendant in the summer of 1969. Following trial without a jury, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Continental), and entered judgment in conformity with its findings and conclusions. The defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as Chandler) appeals from this judgment and from the order of the trial court denying its objections to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the court.

The appellant Chandler is a wholesale lumber distributor at Boise and has done business, both buying and selling of lumber products, with a company known as North America Millowrk, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington. On June 26, 1969, Larry Williams, an employee of Chandler, phoned North America Millwork, Inc., for quotations on plywood prices, advising North America it was in the market for a carload of 1/2 inch plywood and a carload of 5/8 inch plywood. Williams spoke with Ed. Barker, an employee of North America, giving him the necessary data. Later on the same day, Barker advised Williams of the quoted prices for plywood, and Williams ordered the two carloads of plywood from North America Millowork, giving Barker the Chandler purchase order numbers 3246 and 3247.

On the same day, Williams prepared two separate Chandler purchase orders covering the two carloads of plywood fixing the delivery date as two weeks or sooner, f. o. b. mill, with the quoted prices. These two purchase orders, one numbered 3246 and the other numbered 3247, were mailed by Chandler to North America Millwork on the same day.

This was Chandler's first order for plywood from North America Millowrk, although it had transacted a considerable volume of other lumber business with North America Millwork between December, 1968, and July, 1969. In prior transactions when Chandler had purchased from North America, North America had sent its own written acknowledgments of Chandler's purchase orders placed with it and later had submitted invoices upon shipments being made. In this instance, north America neither confirmed nor rejected the June 26, 1969, Chandler purchase orders by written acknowledgment nor did it send its invoices to Chandler.

However, on July 2, 1969, Chandler received two acknowledgements of the orders for plywood from Continental, both dated June 27, 1969, one for a carload of 1/2 inch plywood, and the other for a carload of 5/8 inch plywood. The specifications, prices and terms for the plywood as recited in the acknowledgements were substantially the same as the orders placed by Chandler with North America on June 26. The acknowledgments also referred to the Chandler purchase orders 3246 and 3247 which had been sent to North Amercia Millwork. It is not entirely clear how Continental received Chandler's orders sent to North America. Apparently Ed. Barker left his employment with North America and commenced brokering for Continental and gave the orders to Continental.

On July 7, 1969, the Monday following the Fourth of July holiday, Earl Chandler, the president of appellant company, in his own handwriting, wrote on each duplicate copy of the acknowledgments of orders received from Continental, 'Purchased from North America Millowrk. Earl Chandler 7-7-69' and directed that they be mailed to Continental. Earl Chandler testified that in writing this notation he assumed that Continental was making the shipments for North America. Mrs. Hebein, Earl Chandler's secretary, testified that she mailed these copies of the acknowledgments of orders, addressed to Continental, by regular mail. Witnesses for Continental testified that even though they searched through their files for these copies of the acknowledgements, they could not be found. Chandler kept copies of these acknowledgments with his handwritten note on them, and they were introduced into evidence.

Chandler received the first carload of plywood on July 24, 1969, and received an invoice from Continental for this carload. The second carload of plywood arrived August 6, 1969, and the invoice from Continental arrived on August 15. Chandler took delivery of both of these carloads, and at not time offered to return the plywood.

The terms of the orders provided for a 2% discount if paid for within five days after arrival of the invoice. On August 11, 1969, Chandler made a check for $3,636.36 payable to both Continental and North America Millowrk and returned it to North America Millwork in payment of these two carloads of plywood. In calculating the amount of the payment, Chandler first deducted the 2% discount for the two carloads of plywood and also deducted a $6,212.95 trade debt owing from North America to Chandler. ¹

North America returned Chandler's check and denied that Chandler owed it money for the shipment of plywood. Chandler sent the payment to North America a second time, but it was again returned. Through a series of letters and telephone calls Chandler attempted to induce North America to accept payment. During this time, Ed. Barker (who was then acting as an independent lumber broker, having left employment with North America on June 30, 1969), sent a letter to Williams (employee of Chandler) indicating that Continental was the actual supplier of the plywood. Chandler's attempt to pay North America failed, and Chandler refused to tender payment to Continental without deducting North America's trade debt.

Not having received payment for the two carloads, Continental brought this action for the quoted price of the plywood plus interest. Continental subsequently filed its supplemental complaint alleging a second claim against Chandler on the theory of unjust enrichment on the part of Chandler and seeking as damages $10,231.45.

Appellant Chandler answered the complaint and supplemental complaint, denying that it owed Continental any money or that Continental had sold it any goods. Chandler alleged that it had a contract only with North America to whom it had tendered payment. Following trial to the court on the issues framed by the pleadings, the trial court rendered its memorandum opinion in favor of Continental. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. Rule 52, Chandler moved for reconsideration of the memorandum opinion and proposed findings, which motion the court denied. Thereafter findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment for $11,559.93 were entered, to which appellant objected. The district court denied these objections, and this appeal was taken.

Appellant first assigned as error the trial court's failure to find that Continental's claim was subject to Chandler's right of set off against North America.

In the trial court's memorandum opinion, rendered on May 26, 1971, the court discussed the relationship between Continental and Chandler and found that 'the very least we have was an implied agreement or quasi contract.'

Basically the courts have recognized three types of contractual arrangements. Restatement of Contracts, § 5, comment a, at p. 7 (1932); 3 Corbin on Contracts, § 562 at p. 283 (1960). First is the express contract wherein the parties expressly agree regarding a transaction. Alexander v. O'Neil, 77 Ariz. 316, 267 P.2d 730 (1954). Secondly, there is the implied in fact contract wherein there is no express agreement but the conduct of the parties implies an agreement from which an obligation in contract exists. Clements v. Jungert, 90 Idaho 143, 408 P.2d 810 (1965). The third category is called an implied in law contract, or quasi contract. However, a contract implied in law is not a contract at all, but an obligation imposed by law for the purpose of bringing about justice and equity without reference to the intent or the agreement of the parties and, in some cases, in spite of an agreement between the parties. Hixon v. Allphin, 76 Idaho 327, 281 P.2d 1042 (1955); McShane v. Quillin, 47 Idaho 542, 277 P 554 (1929); 3 Corbin on Contracts, § 561, at p. 276 (1960). It is a non-contractual obligation that is to be treated procedurally as if it were a contract, and is often refered to as quasi contract, unjust enrichment, implied in law contract or restitution. In discussing a quasi contract or an action founded on unjust enrichment, the California Supreme Court stated in Ward v. Taggart, 51 Cal.2d 736, 336 P.2d 534 (1959):

'The promise is purely fictitious and unintentional, originally implied to circumvent rigid common-law pleading. It was invoked not to deny a remedy, but to create one 'for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties.' 1 Williston, Contracts (rev. ed.) p. 9; . . .' 336 P.2d at 538.

Similarly, in Roberts v. Roberts, 64 Wyo. 433, 196 P.2d 361 (1948), the court stated at p. 367:

'This brings us to the question as to an implied or quasi-contract pleaded in the second cause of action. Black's Law Dictionary defines it thus:

'A quasi-contract is what was formerly known as the contract implied in law; it has no reference to the intentions or expressions of the parties. The obligation is imposed despite and frequently in frustration of their intention." 196 P.2d at 367.

See also, Trollope v. Koerner, 106 Ariz. 164, 470 P.2d 91 (1970), and 1 Williston...