Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome's Dept. Store, Inc.

Decision Date18 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CIV,2
Citation129 Ariz. 137,629 P.2d 553
PartiesThe CORONADO COMPANY, INC., general partner, Coronado # 4, a New Mexico limited partnership, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. JACOME'S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Defendant/Appellee. 3690.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
Bilby, Shoenhair, Warnock & Dolph, P. C. by Dwight M. Whitley, Jr., Tucson, for plaintiff/appellant
OPINION

BIRDSALL, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant/appellee on both the complaint and counterclaim in a contract action. The contract was a May, 1976 agreement to lease a store of a specific size to be built in accordance with the specifications of the lessee for the interior in a shopping center of a certain size.

Appellant initiated this suit for damages for an alleged breach by appellee when it terminated the lease in May, 1977. Appellee raised several defenses to this claim and counterclaimed for damages alleging appellant's breach for failure to construct the shopping center and store, which were the objects of the lease, within an agreed time period. After a bench trial, the court made findings of fact and found for appellee on the complaint and counterclaim and awarded it $28,519.92 in compensatory damages plus costs and attorney's fees.

Appellant contends that the judgment is unsupported by the facts. We do not agree. More specifically, appellant contends that appellee was not entitled to rescission due to delay in performance because the contract did not make time of the essence. The trial court's conclusions do not include any characterization of the remedy given appellee. However, appellant's characterization of the remedy as rescission is inconsistent with the pleadings and the form of relief awarded. Implied in every judgment, in addition to express findings made by the court, is any additional finding that is necessary to sustain the judgment, if reasonably supported by the evidence, and not in conflict with the express findings. In Re Holman's Adoption, 80 Ariz. 201, 295 P.2d 372 (1956). Likewise, conclusions of law necessary to sustain the judgment are implied if supported by the evidence and the findings. H.M.L. Jr. v. State, --- Ariz. --- (App., 2 CA-CIV 3757, filed 2/13/81). Had the court granted rescission, both parties would have been restored to their original status. The fact that only appellee was restored indicates that the court found a breach by appellant which excused appellee from performing and entitled it to damages. If the judgment can be sustained on any theory framed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence, we must affirm. See Lawrence v. Valley National Bank, 12 Ariz.App. 51, 467 P.2d 763 (1970).

The court found that appellant was "not able to perform the part of its agreement which required completion of the building (for appellee's store) by August 1, 1977." Appellant does not dispute this fact but argues that it has no significance since time was not of the essence in this contract. We do not agree.

The original written lease agreement did not make time of the essence, although it did provide for a per diem delay penalty if the lease did not begin by April 1, 1977. In August or September, 1976, appellant informed appellee that delays made the April 1, 1977 lease date impossible. Negotiations began about a new occupancy date. Appellant then agreed that the store would be completed in time to prepare for an August 1, 1977 opening and thus modified the original contract. A written contract may be modified by subsequent oral changes that are supported by consideration. Pleasant v. Arizona Storage & Distributing Co., 34 Ariz. 68, 267 P.2d 794 (1928). In the exchange of consideration here, appellant got a delay of its performance from April 1 to August 1 and an implied release from the delay payments during that time and appellee got a time is of the essence provision. A time is of the essence provision may be implied from the character of the subject matter. See Bennie v. Becker-Franz Co., 14 Ariz. 580, 134 P.2d 280 (1913).

The trial court found:

"2. That if the building were completed by October 1, 1977, it would not have permitted sufficient lead time for the various preparations for the department store opening, including fixturing, stocking, hiring the employees, advertising, etc., prior to the Christmas season. 1

3. That Christmas season sales were of major importance to JACOME'S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC. in keeping the proposed department store in a financially viable condition in the first year of operation.

These findings indicate the reason the August opening date was material to the agreement for appellee. Appellant's awareness that the opening date was material was shown by its participation in the ground-breaking ceremony at which the opening date of August 1 was publicly announced.

Appellant argues that this was a construction contract and that time is not ordinarily of the essence in such an agreement citing Taylor v. Goelet, 208 N.Y. 253, 101 N.E. 867 (1913). Appellee counters that the agreement is a lease where time for performance provisions are often very material. Actually appellee argues that the agreement is a "shopping center" lease. See Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Center, Inc., 229 So.2d 834 (Fla.1969). Although appellant correctly characterizes its interests in this agreement as that of a contractor as well as a landlord, appellee's interests cannot be ignored. The tenant in a shopping center lease is, as in this case, in the business of retail sales. Such a tenant's position can be likened to the retail merchant who is concerned with having sufficient inventory of saleable merchandise to attract customers and satisfy their demand. Often, as in the instant case, such business is seasonal. Thus appellee is like the buyer in mercantile cases where even though the contract does not specify in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Demasse v. ITT Corp.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1999
    ...1992); Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 563, 658 P.2d 210, 215 (App.1982); Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., 129 Ariz. 137, 140, 629 P.2d 553, 556 (App.1981); Yeazell, 98 Ariz. at 115-16,402 P.2d at 545-46. To those who believe our conclusion will destroy an ......
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 85-CV-71371.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • January 17, 1992
    ...substantially the same issues, that a tender of defense in the second action is unnecessary. See also Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dept. Stores, Inc., 129 Ariz. 137, 629 P.2d 553 (Ct.App.1981); Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co., 120 Minn. 157, 139 N.W. 355 (1913); Utility Ins. Co. v. Smith,......
  • State v. Zamora
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2009
    ... ... Grant v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456, 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982) ... Coronado Co., Inc. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., 129 ... ...
  • State v. Maciel
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 10, 2015
    ...findings) (citing State v. Ossana, 199 Ariz. 459, 461, ¶ 8, 18 P.3d 1258, 1260 (App.2001), and Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Dep't Store, Inc., 129 Ariz. 137, 139, 629 P.2d 553, 555 (App.1981) ). ¶ 18 Turning to the curb-side questioning, the record shows the trial court fully considered the cum......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT