Hammond v. Streeter
| Decision Date | 29 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-437,85-437 |
| Citation | 406 N.W.2d 633,225 Neb. 491 |
| Parties | , 4 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 758 Virgil L. HAMMOND and Ruth I. Hammond, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Donald W. STREETER, Jr., Doing Business as Streeter Aviation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Courts: Appeal and Error. On appeal from the county court, the district court is required to review the case for error appearing on the record.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. In a law action the disposition of the trial court has the effect of a jury verdict and is not to be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly wrong. When such judgment is not supported by the evidence, it is clearly wrong and must be set aside.
3. Uniform Commercial Code: Contracts: Sales: Words and Phrases. Neb.U.C.C. § 2-709 (Reissue 1980) applies to the sale of goods, which are generally defined in the code as things which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale.
4. Uniform Commercial Code: Contracts: Sales: Appeal and Error. Even though a contract for sale of property was a mixed one, for the sale of both "goods" and "nongoods," where the case was presented to the trial court and to this court on appeal on the theory that the sales article of the Uniform Commercial Code applied, Neb.U.C.C. §§ 2-101 et seq. (Reissue 1980), the Supreme Court will dispose of the case on appeal on that theory.
Bruce E. Sandahl of Person, Dier & Person, Alma, for appellants.
Kenneth C. Fritzler of Ross, Schroeder & Fritzler, Kearney, for appellee.
The plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court for Buffalo County, which vacated their judgment for $7,124 obtained in a county court bench trial on their claim for breach of contract and entered judgment for $124. We affirm.
On April 13, 1983, the plaintiffs conducted an auction sale of the assets of the Hammond Flying Service, an aerial spraying business, at the Alma Municipal Airport in Harlan County, Nebraska. The defendant was the high bidder for a meter, for which he bid $110; a chemical hose, for which he bid $10; a mixing tank, for which he bid $4; and the flying service business itself, for which he bid $7,000. The flying service business was represented to include three hangars, a paid-up lease on real estate for 1983, a customer list, an agreement not to compete, runway markers, and airplane tiedowns. The defendant delivered a check for $7,124 to the clerk of the sale, but subsequently stopped payment on the check.
The plaintiffs filed suit for breach of contract, relying on Neb.U.C.C. § 2-709 (Reissue 1980) at trial as the basis for recovery. The defendant asserted the affirmative defenses of breach of warranty, misrepresentation, impossibility of performance, and failure to mitigate damages. The county court for Buffalo County entered judgment for the plaintiffs for $7,124.
On appeal the district court found that the evidence presented to the county court did not bring the measure of damages as to the sale of the flying service within § 2-709. The district court found that the requirements of § 2-709 were not satisfied concerning the flying service because the defendant did not accept the goods and also because there was no proof that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages. The district court thus vacated the county court's judgment of $7,124 and entered judgment for $124, the amount that the defendant had bid for the items other than the flying service.
On appeal from the county court, the district court is to review the case for error appearing on the record. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-541.06 (Reissue 1985). In a law action the disposition of the trial court has the effect of a jury verdict and is not to be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly wrong. However, when such judgment is not supported by the evidence, it is clearly wrong and must be set aside. Chilton Accts. Rec. Mgmt. v. Project Life Min., 225 Neb. 482, 406 N.W.2d 133 (1987).
On appeal to this court the plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in determining that the evidence did not bring the measure of damages as to the flying service business within § 2-709 and in vacating the county court's judgment with respect to the $7,000 that the defendant bid on the business. On cross-appeal the defendant contends that the district court erred in not finding for the defendant on the additional grounds of breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and impossibility of performance.
The defendant, Donald W. Streeter, Jr., operated an aerial spraying business in Kearney and Holdrege, Nebraska, ran a flight school, and was involved in other aviation-related activities. He and Bruce Allred, who was not made a party to this action, formed Streeter Aviation for the purpose of establishing an aerial spraying operation based at the Alma Municipal Airport.
The plaintiffs, Virgil L. and Ruth I. Hammond, were partners in Hammond Flying Service, an aerial spraying business near Alma, Nebraska. The plaintiffs had run the spraying business for 19 years and decided to sell the business and various other items at an auction sale in April 1983. The sale bill for the auction described the Hammond Flying Service as follows: At the auction it was announced that the flying service business included the items described on the sale bill plus a customer list and a noncompetition agreement. The terms of the sale were cash.
The Alma Municipal Airport is located next to the Harlan County Reservoir on land leased from the Army Corps of Engineers. The lease listed on the sale bill referred to a privately-owned tract of land adjoining the airport runway. The hangars were located partially on this land and partially on land owned by the federal government. No fuel or chemicals could be stored or loaded on government land, so the leased tract of land was used for those purposes.
On the day of the sale the defendant wrote a check for $7,124 payable to "Hammond Sale." The defendant testified that he stopped payment on the check sometime between April 13 and 21, 1983, but did not remember the exact date. Payment was stopped because the defendant and Allred were concerned about various aspects of the business. The concerns were brought about when the defendant and Allred learned that the Alma Municipal Airport was scheduled to be closed in November 1983 by the Corps of Engineers and that the lease on the tract of land was only an oral agreement and, according to Virgil Hammond's testimony, would expire on May 1, 1983, and at the time of the sale the land's owner and the plaintiffs had not entered into a new lease agreement.
The plaintiffs rely on § 2-709 of the Uniform Commercial Code as their basis of recovery. Section 2-709 provides in pertinent part:
(1) When the buyer fails to pay the price as it becomes due the seller may recover, together with any incidental damages under the next section, the price
(a) of goods accepted or of conforming goods lost or damaged within a commercially reasonable time after risk of their loss has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mbh, Inc. v. John Otte Oil & Propane, Inc.
...used when a transaction includes the sale of goods mixed with the sale of nongoods, as opposed to services. See Hammond v. Streeter, 225 Neb. 491, 495, 406 N.W.2d 633, 636 (1987) ("[i]n the present case, as is often true in the sale of a business, the sale of the Hammond Flying Service invo......
-
Nebraska Builders Products Co. v. Industrial Erectors, Inc.
...Id. However, when such judgment is not supported by the evidence, it is clearly wrong and must be set aside. Hammond v. Streeter, 225 Neb. 491, 406 N.W.2d 633 (1987). Regarding a question of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the trial cou......
-
IBP, Inc. v. HK Systems, Inc., 8:98CV480 (D. Neb. 2000)
...F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998); Cambridge Plating Co., Inc. v. NAPCO, Inc., 991 F.2d 21, 24 (1st Cir. 1993); Hammond v. Streeter, 225 Neb. 491, 495, 406 N.W.2d 633, 635 (1987). Thus, if the goods were movable at the time of their identification to the contract for the sale, then they fall......
-
SMA, LLC v. Chief Indus., Inc.
...Article 2 of the UCC as adopted in Nebraska in turn depends on whether a sale is a "transaction in goods." Hammond v. Streeter, 225 Neb. 491, 406 N.W.2d 633, 635–36 (1987). Chief Industries points to the language of the contract being one for goods in the form of components for a building i......