Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak, 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
Writing for the CourtHATHAWAY; ROLL, P.J., and HOWARD
Citation163 Ariz. 624,790 P.2d 279
PartiesThe MARICOPA PARTNERSHIPS, INC., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Edward PETYAK and Jane Doe Petyak, Defendants/Appellants. 89-0122.
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CV,2
Decision Date19 December 1989

Page 279

790 P.2d 279
163 Ariz. 624
The MARICOPA PARTNERSHIPS, INC., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee,
Edward PETYAK and Jane Doe Petyak, Defendants/Appellants.
No. 2 CA-CV 89-0122.
Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division 2, Department A.
Dec. 19, 1989.
Review Denied May 1, 1990. *

Winston & Strawn by M. Robert Dauber and Daniel Maynard, Phoenix, for plaintiff/appellee.

Craig Mehrens, P.A. by Craig Mehrens and Amy Wilemon, Paul G. Ulrich, Phoenix, for defendants/appellants.



Edward and Jane Doe Petyak (appellants) appeal from a judgment in the amount of $29,800 entered in favor of The Maricopa Partnerships, Inc., (appellee) following a jury verdict. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's instruction on the agency theory was an incorrect statement of the law constituting reversible error. Because we conclude that it was, we reverse and remand.


Appellant Edward Petyak, an American Airlines pilot, was also engaged in importing and reselling luxury cars. He met with appellee in the spring of 1985. Following a discussion of specifications, they orally agreed that appellant would locate and import a new Jaguar automobile for appellee. On June 4, 1985, appellee gave appellant a $2,500 check as a downpayment. The vehicle was to be imported from Europe and delivered to appellee after completion of modifications to meet U.S. regulations.

There were delays in importing the Jaguar over a six-month period of time. Appellant advised appellee of the problems and indicated it might be another three to four months before the Jaguar would arrive, if at all.

Appellant apparently advised that he had seen newspaper ads in Dallas showing Jaguars

Page 280

[163 Ariz. 625] available at similar prices. It is disputed whether appellee or appellant initially suggested pursuing the Dallas ads instead of waiting to import directly from Europe. It is undisputed that appellant agreed to look into the Dallas ads on behalf of appellee.

Appellant visited the Dallas dealership, Gerimco, and found a vehicle meeting appellee's specifications. He telephoned appellee from the dealership and negotiated the price and modifications between appellee and the dealer over the phone. It was agreed at that time that the purchase price would be $29,800, including modifications. Appellee and appellant agreed that Gerimco would ship the car to appellee in Phoenix. Appellant agreed to write his personal check for the purchase price and within several days appellee delivered a check to appellant for the purchase price, less the $2,500 deposit already paid. No profit to appellant was contemplated under these terms.

Appellant's cancelled check to Gerimco for $29,800 was admitted in evidence. Appellee's testimony both on direct and cross-examination was that the dealer, Gerimco, not appellant, was to deliver the car to Phoenix. The Jaguar never arrived in Phoenix. Upon inquiry, appellant learned that the dealer absconded with the money and the Texas bank which held the lien on the Jaguar repossessed it. Appellee demanded a refund of the purchase price which appellant refused to pay. Appellee then filed suit and following a three-day trial, the case went to the jury on two theories. Under the first theory, appellee alleged breach of a sales contract. Under the second, appellee alleged that appellant breached an agency agreement. The jury was instructed on both theories. On the agency issue, the court instructed:

In deciding that issue, you must decide the extent of the agent's duties to the principal as determined by the terms of the agreement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Goodman v. Physical Res. Eng'g, Inc., 2 CA–CV 2011–0053.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 28, 2011
    ...of prior decisions to the contrary, we may seek guidance from the Restatement when it is applicable. Maricopa P'ships, Inc. v. Petyak, 163 Ariz. 624, 626, 790 P.2d 279, 281 (App.1989). 4. Apparent agency exists when “ ‘the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced third persons t......
  • Keg Rests. Ariz., Inc. v. Jones, 1 CA–CV 15–0054
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • June 2, 2016
    ...exists to create a contractual obligation. Agency is both a consensual and a fiduciary relationship. Maricopa P'ships, Inc. v. Petyak , 163 Ariz. 624, 626, 790 P.2d 279, 281 (App. 1989). “The inherent nature of the agency relationship imposes a fiduciary duty upon the agent to act according......
  • Heaphy v. Willow Canyon Healthcare, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2020-0113
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 18, 2021
    ...manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act." Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) ; see Maricopa P'ships, Inc. v. Petyak , 163 Ariz. 624, 626, 790 P.2d 279, 281 (App. 1989) (Arizona courts generally follow Restatement of Agency). Although an agency relationship can derive from ......
  • Knightbrook Ins. Co. v. Payless Car Rental Sys., Inc., CV–12–01671–PHX–DGC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • September 3, 2014
    ...duty upon the agent to act in good faith and according to the terms of the agency agreement.” Maricopa P'ships, Inc. v. Petyak, 163 Ariz. 624, 790 P.2d 279, 281 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989); see Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 (2006) ( “Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one p......
  • 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