Gray v. Reynolds

Decision Date25 September 1987
Citation514 So.2d 973
PartiesVan GRAY v. James M. REYNOLDS and J. Eugene Garrison. 86-59.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

John W. Kelly III of Sikes & Kelly, and Charles H. Sims III, Selma, for appellant.

Robert R. Blair, Selma, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

The plaintiff, Van Gray, appeals the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, James M. Reynolds and J. Eugene Garrison, in a breach of contract action. Gray contracted with Reynolds and Garrison (both hereinafter referred to as "Reynolds") to purchase sawdust at fifty cents ($.50) per ton. However, before Gray could complete his contract, Reynolds sold 6000 tons of the same sawdust to a third party for $1.00 per ton. Gray then sued Reynolds for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Reynolds, holding that the writing sued upon was insufficient to support a judgment in favor of Gray and that the writing constituted a standing offer from Reynolds to Gray for Gray to purchase sawdust at a set price. We disagree with the judgment of the trial court and reverse.

On March 2, 1984, Gray and Reynolds entered into the following agreement, written by Reynolds:

"CONTRACT OF SALE

"AGREEMENT DATE MARCH 2, 1984

"This agreement is a contract for the sale and removal of approximately 9,000 tons of sawdust being sold by J. Eugene Garrison and James M. Reynolds, joint property owners of 13.83 acres lying in Dallas County, Alabama, T-17, R-10, S-19. The purchaser of said sawdust will be Van Gray.

"It is hereby agreed that the above stated property owners will convey said sawdust to Van Gray for cash payment at the rate of $0.50 per ton. It is further agreed that Van Gray will remove the entire sawdust pile, leaving the real property level and drainable. Payments for this sawdust will be made on a weekly basis.

"Sellers /s/ J. Eugene Garrison

J. Eugene Garrison

/s/ James M. Reynolds

James M. Reynolds

"Buyer /s/ Van Gray

"Buyers Address __________" (Plaintiff's trial Exhibit 1, R. 33, 327)

After the contract was signed, Gray spent $4,000 improving a road located on the property so that he could use heavy equipment to remove the sawdust. Gray removed sawdust for several weeks in March and April. After this period, due to equipment problems, Gray did not haul away any sawdust for a period of several weeks. When Gray returned to the property to resume hauling the sawdust, Reynolds called Gray and told him he was allowing a Mr. Brown to haul away sawdust for $1.00 per ton. Soon thereafter, Gray returned to the property and noticed a loader parked near the sawdust pile and saw that someone other than himself had removed sawdust. He also noticed damage to the road that he had improved. At this time, Gray considered the contract breached, and he contacted his attorney.

Gray argues that a valid contract existed between himself and Reynolds and that the trial court erred when it did not give it full effect. Reynolds argues that the contract is vague and indefinite in its terms and, therefore, that the intention of the parties cannot be fairly and reasonably understood. He also argues that what actually existed was a standing offer from Reynolds to Gray allowing him to purchase and remove the sawdust at his will. We disagree.

Where a trial court bases its judgment upon findings of fact in a non-jury case in which the evidence was presented ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attaches to that judgment. Cougar Mining Co. v. Mineral Land & Mining Consultants, Inc., 392 So.2d 1177 (Ala.1981). However, no such presumption exists when the trial court has improperly applied the law to the facts. Smith v. Style Advertising, Inc., 470 So.2d 1194 (Ala.1985).

The elements of a contract are: (1) an agreement, (2) with consideration, (3) between two or more contracting parties, (4) with a legal object, and (5) legal capacity. Freeman v. First State Bank of Albertville, 401 So.2d 11 (Ala.1981). No argument is made between the parties concerning the last three elements.

First, there must be an agreement. In order to determine the nature of a contract, the court should look at the contract's terms and conditions. Grass v. Ward, 451 So.2d 803 (Ala.1984). In order to determine the contract's nature and meaning, the trial court must construe the contract as a whole. Dudley v. Fridge, 443 So.2d 1207 (Ala.1983). The contract plainly states that Gray is to buy 9,000 tons of sawdust from Reynolds for $.50 a ton. It also states that Gray is to remove the entire sawdust pile. Both parties agreed that the pile was estimated at 9,000 tons. It is clear that Gray was to purchase the whole pile. The contract gives the location of the property and states that Gray is to make cash payments on a weekly basis. As there is no ambiguity as to the agreement between Gray and Reynolds, we now examine the agreement in order to determine if consideration exists.

The agreement in this case is supported by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Whisenhant v. State, 1 Div. 333
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23. August 1988
    ...to exert any influence upon his determination of the issue." Joiner v. State, 232 Ala. 522, 168 So. 885 (1936). Gray v. Reynolds, 514 So.2d 973 (Ala.1987); Gaston v. Ames, 514 So.2d 877 This court is required by § 13A-5-53, Code of Alabama 1975, to review the propriety of the appellant's de......
  • Devlin v. Ingrum
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 17. April 1991
    ...(2) with consideration, (3) between two or more contracting parties, (4) with a legal object, and (5) legal capacity." Gray v. Reynolds, 514 So.2d 973, 975 (Ala.1987). The intention of the parties at the time of making the contract controls, not subsequent perceptions. Vester J. Thompson, J......
  • Samuel v. Mallory
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3. November 1989
    ...without a jury, and a presumption of correctness will be given to the trial court's conclusions on issues of fact. See, Gray v. Reynolds, 514 So.2d 973 (Ala.1987); King v. Travelers Ins. Co., 513 So.2d 1023 (Ala.1987); Nelson v. Littrell Lumber Co., 512 So.2d 1340 (Ala.1987). Furthermore, u......
  • Justice v. Arab Lumber and Supply, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 9. September 1988
    ...case in which the evidence is presented ore tenus, that judgment is reviewed on appeal with a presumption of correctness. Gray v. Reynolds, 514 So.2d 973 (Ala.1987); Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792 (Ala.1980); M.D. Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mitchell, 510 So.2d 827 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Moreover,......
  • 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