Mooney v. Craddock, 74--011
| Decision Date | 19 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--011,74--011 |
| Citation | 35 Colo.App. 20,530 P.2d 1302 |
| Parties | John H. MOONEY and Rosemary Mooney, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Barry CRADDOCK, Individually, et al., Defendants-Appellants. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Moyers, Kirkman & Henley, William H. Kirkman, Jr., Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Goodbee & Mason, Robert J. Mason, Colorado Springs, for defendants-appellants.
Defendant Barry Craddock, d/b/a Craddock Development Company (Craddock), appeals from a judgment entered after a trial to the court for damages in the amount of $19,500 awarded to plaintiffs for breach of a contract to lease. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court's findings, which are supported by the evidence, establish the following sequence of events which prompted the present controversy. While serving in the armed services, plaintiff John Mooney developed skills at handball and racketball and thus became interested in establishing an athletic club after his retirement to provide facilities and instruction for these and other athletic activities. In March of 1972, Mooney, who was almost eligible for retirement, visited Colorado Springs where he discussed his interest in managing an athletic club with a real estate salesman. At that time, Craddock, an experienced real estate developer, was in the process of constructing an office building which was to include an athletic club. The salesman therefore advised Fred Norton, Craddock's employee, of Mooney's interest.
Mooney returned to his post in Germany. He and Norton communicated thereafter by correspondence and long- distance calls, and, based on these communications, Mooney concluded that he and his wife could negotiate a lease for an athletic club. He retired from the service (thus forfeiting certain accrued leave pay) and returned to Colorado Springs to pursue the negotiations.
Discussions followed in Colorado Springs between Mooney, Norton, and Craddock at Craddock's offices. The major points to be resolved were the amount of rental and the erection of an auxiliary building in connection with the main building to house additional handball and squash courts. At the urging of Norton, Mooney was advised to project the type of facilities required to generate $12,000 per year income to Mooney. Upon review of Mooney's proposals as to the number and types of facilities necessary, Craddock replied, 'let's go.'
Following these discussions, Norton prepared and mailed to Mooney a letter dated August 21, 1972. Insofar as relevant here, the letter states:
'The base term at above rent structure shall be for five years. . . .
'As soon as I meet with Frampton's man and we have the rear building designed I will let you know. . . .'
Mooney was instructed to execute one copy and return it to Norton if the letter conformed to the understanding of the parties. Mooney proceeded accordingly.
Mooney then moved his wife and children from Germany to Colorado Springs and began preparations for opening an athletic club, including such items as obtaining sizable loans to purchase equipment, purchasing materials for and installing a sauna in the main building, preparing printed brochures and mailing of same to prospective members of the athletic club, making an extended trip to California to meet with suppliers of equipment and other items utilized in athletic clubs, and joining various organizations to promote the venture. These activities continued through December of 1972.
Craddock's architect was to prepare drawings and blueprints for the auxiliary building, but because of Craddock's other projects, no blueprints or drawings had been completed by October 1972. At that time, Mooney suggested several changes in the auxiliary building, principally for the purpose of substituting two handball courts for the two squash courts originally contemplated.
The printed brochure was mailed to prospective members in December, and within a week thereafter only three responses had been returned. Upon learning of the lack of responses, Norton informed Mooney that the project could not be completed as originally discussed and imposed a minimum membership requirement as a condition for erection of the auxiliary building.
The Mooneys filed this action for damages, alleging that Craddock had agreed to construct and lease an athletic club to the Mooneys and that the Mooneys had expended substantial amounts of time and money in reliance on this agreement. Prior to trial, the claim against Norton was dismissed leaving Craddock as the sole defendant. Craddock's answer raised various affirmative defenses and alleged that the parties never agreed upon the terms of a contract to lease.
A number of witnesses called by Mooneys testified and the trial court found that the athletic club would have been a success had it opened as contemplated. Testimony was presented by both parties relative to all of their discussions and correspondence leading up to and following execution of the August 21 letter. The trial court then determined that the parties had reached an enforceable contract to lease, that Craddock had breached the contract, and that Mooneys were entitled to recover damages in the amount of $19,500.
Craddock contends that the trial court erred on numerous grounds in determining that the parties had reached mutual agreement on all essential terms of the contract to lease. Only two of Craddock's contentions have merit.
The main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neiss v. Ehlers
...on the representations of another is the gist of this action. Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, supra; Mooney v. Craddock, [35 Colo App 20, 530 P2d 1302 (1974) ]. The doctrine represents, in part, a modest extension of the basic contract principle that one who makes promises must be......
-
Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 80SC293
...fairness to one detrimentally relying on the promise of another."); Hunter v. Hayes, 533 P.2d 952 (Colo.App.1975); Mooney v. Craddock, 35 Colo.App. 20, 530 P.2d 1302 (1974). The purpose of promissory estoppel is to provide a remedy, under certain circumstances, to those who rely to their de......
-
Politte v. McDonald's Corp.
...often appropriate when parties have not mutually agreed on all the essential terms of a proposed transaction"); Mooney v. Craddock, 530 P.2d 1302, 1305 (Colo.App.1974) ("[i]n order to invoke the remedy authorized by [the promissory estoppel] doctrine, it is not necessary to establish mutual......
-
Kiely v. St. Germain
...is part of the common law of Colorado. Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 646 P.2d 900 (Colo.1982); Mooney v. Craddock, 35 Colo.App. 20, 530 P.2d 1302 (1974). That section, entitled "Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action," states as "A promise which the promisor......
-
Letters of Intent: Are They Binding?
...Inc., 738 P.2d 73, 74 (Colo.App. 1987), using the classic example of taking possession and making substantial improvements. 31. 530 P.2d 1302 (Colo.App. 1974). 32. Id. at 1305. The court relied on what is now the Restatement (Second) of Contracts§ 90(1) (1979). 33. 776 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Colo......