Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Products, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 December 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 9370,9370 |
Citation | 261 N.W.2d 869 |
Parties | Gary M. HAGEL and Susan I. Hagel, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BUCKINGHAM WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., d.b.a. Midwestern Homes, and Ed Koch, Individually, and as Agent for Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Orville A. Schulz, New Salem, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Zuger & Bucklin, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees; argued by Robert V. Bolinske, Bismarck.
Plaintiffs Gary M. and Susan I. Hagel (hereinafter Hagels) appealed from that portion of the Burleigh County District Court's judgment dismissing the complaint against co-defendant Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., d.b.a. Midwestern Homes (hereinafter Midwestern Homes). Hagels brought an action against Midwestern Homes and Ed Koch, individually and as agent for Midwestern Homes, which resulted in a judgment only against Koch and in favor of Hagels, in the amount of $16,208.17, for failing to complete the construction of a home.
The Hagels initiated their first contact with Midwestern Homes by responding to an ad placed in the Bismarck Tribune. The Hagels mailed the ad to Midwestern Homes' main office in Rapid City, South Dakota, in October 1974, and received a catalog in which a letter from Midwestern Homes designating Randall Pooley as the area representative was enclosed.
In November 1974, Koch telephoned the Hagels, and according to their testimony, advised them that he was a representative of Midwestern Homes. (Koch disputed that he was a representative.) A meeting between the Hagels and Koch was subsequently arranged. At that meeting, Koch gave the Hagels a newer edition of Midwestern Homes' catalog, which contained the handwritten notation, " on the cover's upper left-hand corner. Koch also gave the Hagels a pen with "Midwestern Homes" advertised on it.
At this first meeting in November 1974, Koch assisted the Hagels in reviewing the housing designs contained in the Midwestern Homes' catalog. According to Koch's testimony, he informed the Hagels that he was a local builder-contractor involved in constructing prefabricated homes.
After several meetings with Koch, the Hagels selected the "Jamestown" home design with modifications, including the addition of a double garage and a recreation room. According to undisputed testimony, the Hagels could purchase the home as (1) package material only; (2) partially completed; or (3) fully completed. The Hagels chose a fully completed "Jamestown" home, with only the exterior painting and landscaping left unfinished.
In a January 1975 letter, Midwestern Homes quoted Koch the figure of $19,298.54 as the retail price of the "Jamestown" home package. On 3 February 1975, the Hagels and Koch signed a single instrument entitled "Proposal" for both the purchase and construction of the home, for a total price of $36,543.18, including $20,700.03 specified for the "Jamestown" home package. The agreement was subject to financing, which the Hagels secured from the Veterans Administration with the help of Koch and the technical assistance of Midwestern Homes' personnel. Koch then ordered the home from Midwestern Homes.
On 24 March 1975, Midwestern Homes sold the "Jamestown" home package to Koch for $17,665.12, or almost a ten percent discount on the retail price of $19,298.54 quoted earlier for Koch and the Hagels. Construction on the Hagels' home began 22 April 1975. During the period of construction, signs were placed in front of the site and in the picture window of the house advertising it as a Midwestern Home.
Before the prefabricated walls were delivered, Randall Pooley, area representative for Midwestern Homes, visited the construction site to measure the basement of the home. At the time the prefabricated walls were delivered to the home site, a Midwestern Homes' truck or crane assisted in raising the walls.
Construction on the Hagel home proceeded smoothly until August 1975, when Koch, apparently out of funds, abandoned the construction, leaving the home incomplete.
The Hagels' action against Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., d.b.a. Midwestern Homes, and Ed Koch, individually, and as an agent of Midwestern Homes, sought damages in the amount of $30,000.00 for a breach of contract allegedly committed by Midwestern Homes and its agent, Koch.
The trial court gave the Hagels a judgment but only against Koch individually, in the amount of $16,208.70, but dismissed the complaint against Midwestern Homes. The Hagels appealed from the judgment dismissing the complaint against Midwestern Homes.
The Hagels contend the trial court erred by not finding that a continuing relationship of principal and agent existed between Midwestern Homes and Koch for the construction of the home, making Midwestern Homes liable for the breach of contract committed by Koch, its agent.
The pertinent findings of fact by the trial court are:
Defendant Koch was neither the actual nor ostensible agent of Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., d/b/a/ Midwestern Homes for the construction of the subject home.
(Intervening numbers were skipped.)
The trial court's memorandum opinion states, in part, as follows:
The trial court, in its conclusions of law, stated:
A brief review of some of the pertinent evidence and the atmosphere it produced under which the transaction took place will be helpful in developing a better understanding and resolution of the ultimate issue.
The first contact the Hagels had with Midwestern Homes, outside of the newspaper ads, was the catalog they received from Midwestern Homes (in response to their mailing in a clipping of the newspaper ad) containing the following letter which was attached to the inside of the first page of the catalog:
: "MIDWESTERN HOMES :N OF BUCKINGHAM WOOD PRODUCTS, INC Corner : AREA CODE 605 TELEPHONE 342 6560 torn : P.O. BOX 2064 out : RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 57701 : DATE YOUR AREA REPRESENTATIVE : : Hagel 11-11-74 Randall Pooley :1 Box 640 : er, ND 58530 Rapid City, SD 57701
WE'RE PROUD AS A PEACOCK ---
To send you this beautiful new catalog...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alerus Financial v. Western State Bank
...burden of proof, i.e., the burden of persuasion, in such cases is clear and specific—clear and convincing. In Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 869 (N.D.1977), we stated that a third person acts in good faith and without ordinary negligence if the third person uses reasona......
-
Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. Am Dirtworks & Constr. LLC
...authority to act." Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), 325 N.W.2d 210, 214 (N.D. 1982) (quoting Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Prods., 261 N.W.2d 869, 875 (N.D. 1977)). Applying these principles, Sticka was employed as an aggregate manager, meaning he was Phillips' actual agent. ......
-
Pfliger v. Peavey Co., 9960
...to act for and on behalf of the principal.' " For a more complete discussion of the above principles, see Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 869, 873-877 (N.D.1977), wherein this court "We believe the principal, after allowing or permitting the creation of an ostensible age......
-
Hector v. Metro Centers, Inc., MEINECKE-JOHNSON
...with others in a way that made it and Metro Centers appear to be indistinguishable. As this court said in Hagel v. Buckingham Wood Products, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 869, 877 (N.D.1977): "We believe that he who creates an erroneous impression and stands to gain from the transaction should be held l......