Reid v. Casey
| Decision Date | 03 November 1976 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 79 |
| Parties | Glenn R. REID and Mavis R. Reid v. J. M. CASEY, d/b/a Southern Auction Company. Civ. 918. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James F. Berry, Cullman, for appellants.
Henslee & Bradley, Gadsden, William A. McCrary, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cullman County's action interpreting a contract in favor of the plaintiff Casey and against the defendant Reid.
The defendants on appeal contend they are not liable under the terms of the contract for an auctioneer's fee. This court finds the trial court's action in awarding a judgment in the amount of $3,500 to Casey, the auctioneer, sustainable, and we affirm.
The appellants, Mr. Glenn R. Reid and his wife, Mavis Reid, are residents of Cullman, Alabama, where Mr. Reid is engaged in the real estate business. The appellee, Mr. J. M. Casey, does business as Southern Auction Company (hereinafter Southern).
On May 30, 1975, Mr. Casey, Mr. Frank M. Campbell, an employee of Southern, and Mr. Reid met in the latter's office to make arrangements for Southern to conduct an auction of certain of Mr. and Mrs. Reid's real estate holdings. The realty consisted of unimproved subdivision lots and a rental house. Pursuant to the discussions Mr. Casey, on that day, presented a form entitled 'CONTRACT' to Mr. Reid. It stated that in consideration of one dollar the owners of the property sold Southern the exclusive right to sell at an auction on July 12, 1975, the Reid property, to wit:
'The real estate above described shall be offered at auction upon the terms of 25% down, such payment to be made by cash or check with the balance due in 30 days.
'Auctioneer agrees to advertise and promote the auction in its usual way, to furnish necessary help to conduct the auction and pay expenses of same and owner agrees that no other expenses connected in any way with the auction is to be paid by auctioneer and that auctioneer's duties and responsibility will end at completion of auction.
The emphasized language was handwritten in blanks on the form by the parties.
On May 30, 1975, the contract was signed by Mr. Casey for Southern but was not signed by either Mr. Reid or Mrs. Reid.
The contract remained in the possession of Mr. Reid for a short period of time, a week or two, until the parties again met so that Mr. Reid could show Mr. Casey the property he desired to sell. Mr. Reid told Mr. Casey that Mrs. Reid did not wish to sell the property unless the sale price at the auction would be sufficient to pay off an existing mortgage on the property of $42,500 plus the auctioneer's commission.
To this end, Mr. Casey added the following language to the contract:
'15 Lots and approx 30 Lots subject to mortgage of approx $42,500 plus commission.'
This language was incorporated so that the pertinent provision of the contract in its final version read as follows:
'The real estate above described shall be offered at auction upon the terms of 25% Down, such payment to be made by cash or check with the balance due in 30 days.
'Auctioneer agrees to advertise and promote the auction in its usual way, to furnish necessary help to conduct the auction and pay expenses of same and owner agrees that no other expenses connected in any way with the auction is to be paid by auctioneer and that auctioneer's duties and responsibility will end at completion of auction.
After Mr. Reid watched Mr. Casey insert the provision, the two men returned to Mr. Reid's home where Mr. Reid signed the contract. Mr. Reid also signed the contract after Mr. Casey inserted the above quoted language.
The following testimony concerning the intent of the parties as to the pertinent provision of the contract was admitted without objection in the trial court:
Mr. Casey, the appellee, stated that the provision he added was to insure that the Reids could refuse to sell the property for any bid received of less than $42,500 plus his commission. He stated the language he added in no manner affected his 'no sale fee' of $3,500, which he was to receive for expenses and conducting the auction irrespective of whether the sale was confirmed by Mr. Reid. He stated the additional language was inserted to allow Mr. and Mrs. Reid to refuse to accept offers of less than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nobles v. Rural Community Ins. Services
...full effect. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 59, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995); Reid v. Casey, 339 So.2d 79, 82 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) ("[a]ll of a contract must, if possible, be given effect.") In this case, Plaintiffs claim entitlement to indemnity for lo......
-
Bullock v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co., CIV. A. 01-D-683-S.
...full effect. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 59, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995); Reid v. Casey, 339 So.2d 79, 82 (Ala.Civ.App.1976) ("[a]ll provisions of a contract must, if possible, be given III. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant moves th......
-
Reeder v. Reeder
...there is uncertainty and ambiguity in a contract, the court must construe it so as to express the intent of the parties. Reid v. Casey, 339 So.2d 79 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). Such intent can be derived from the provisions of the contract. Sisco v. Empiregas, Inc., 286 Ala. 72, 237 So.2d 463 (1970......
-
Weathers v. Weathers
...ambiguity in a contract, it is the duty of the court to construe the contract so as to express the intent of the parties. Reid v. Casey, 339 So.2d 79 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). Also, since it is presumed that parties intend to make reasonable contracts, courts will give ambiguous contracts a reaso......