Thompson Lumber Co. v. Cozier Container Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 8582,8582 |
| Citation | 333 P.2d 1004,80 Idaho 455 |
| Parties | THOMPSON LUMBER CO., Inc., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COZIER CONTAINER CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Whitla & Knudson, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.
Stephen Bistline, Sandpoint, for respondent.
Respondent brought this action on a written contract, to recover six months' rental on a U D 24 Power Unit, and the repair and incidental costs of placing the equipment 'in sound operating condition.'
Respondent in its amended complaint alleges that on April 8, 1953, it rented the power unit to appellant for the agreed rental of $100 a month, which equipment appellant agreed to return in sound operating condition.
Relevant portions of the rental agreement read:
'The party of the first part [respondent] agrees to rent to the party of the second part [appellant] * * * the U D 24 Power Unit * * * rental to commence the day the equipment is picked up and to end on the day the equipment is returned.
'The party of the second part [appellant] agrees to return the equipment in sound operating condition. * * *.'
Respondent then alleges that appellant kept the power until from April 8 to December 8, 1953, paying the agreed rental; that appellant did not return the equipment in 'sound operating condition,' but in a wholly inoperative condition, necessitating repairs; that respondent upon dismantling the power unit at a cost of $135 ascertained the defects and advised appellant thereof; that respondent then transported the power unit to Spokane, Washington, where Intermountain Equipment Company estimated the expense of repairing it at $2,500, but that respondent, acting in the best interest of appellant in eliminating certain parts and expense, accomplished the repair by said company, of placing the machine in a sound operating condition, at a cost of $861.62, as reflected by an itemized statement of the repair bill; that in transporting the power unit to and from Spokane, respondent incurred trucking expenses totaling $100.
Respondent further alleges that since it did not obtain return of the repaired power unit until June 8, 1954, it became entitled to six months' additional rent from appellant, for the period from December 8, 1953, of June 8, 1954, totaling $600. Respondent prayed for judgment in such sums totaling $1,696.62, together with interest.
The trial court overruled appellant's demurrer to the amended complaint but granted in part its motion to strike portions thereof.
The jury returned a verdict in respondent's favor for $1,696.62 together with interest of $287.74. The trial court thereupon entered judgment in respondent's favor against appellant for $1,984.36, together with $47.75 costs, all totaling $2,032.11. Appellant perfected an appeal therefrom.
Appellant assigns error of the trial court in overruling its demurrer, special in nature, to respondent's amended complaint. We have examined the complaint and conclude that the trial court did not commit error in that regard.
Appellant defended on two theories: First, that since the power unit, when rented, was not in good workable condition, as respondent impliedly warranted it to be, appellant was under no duty to return it in any better condition than as received. Second, that since the agreement provided for rental of the power unit at $100 a month to commence April 8, 1953 and 'to end on the day the equipment is returned,' rental cannot be considered as a measure of damage. Appellant's various assignments of error save for review the issues so presented.
We recognize the general rule, that where a chattel is hired or leased out for a particular purpose, a warranty will be implied that the chattel is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is hired or leased. Tufts v. Verkuyl, 124 Mich. 242, 82 N.W. 891; Collette v. Page, 44 R.I. 26, 114 A. 136, 18 A.L.R. 74; Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. Hart, 237 N.Y. 30, 142 N.E. 342, 31 A.L.R. 536, and Annotation, 541; Reynolds v. American Foundry & Machine Co., 121 Utah 130, 239 P.2d 209; Marcos v. Texas Co., 75 Ariz. 45, 251 P.2d 647; Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal.2d 481, 275 P.2d 15.
In the case here, the parties conceded that the power unit needed certain repairs when rented, and that respondent at its expense furnished such items of initial repair as appellant requested. Thereafter there appears to have been no question concerning the ability of the power unit to perform in a manner satisfactory to appellant. Appellant's general manager testified:
* * *
* * *
Appellant's logging superintendent testified that after the initial repairs the power unit had ability to work and that it accomplished the job for which hired; also that appellant at no time complained about it to respondent.
The evidence thus adduced from respondent's witnessess shows that the power unit was reasonably fit for, and reasonably accomplished the purpose fir which appellant hired it.
Appellant's next contention that appellant was under no duty to return the power unit in any better condition than received, must be regarded in the light of its contractual duty in the premises.
The specific terms of the express contract must be accorded due consideration, particularly the provision, 'the party of the second part [appellant] agrees to return the above equipment [U D 24 Power Unit] in sound operating condition.' The contract fails to support appellant's theory that its only duty was to return the equipment in as good condition as received, with perhaps reasonable wear and tear excepted.
The rule is stated in 8 C.J.S. Bailments § 22, p. 255:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dursteler v. Dursteler
...the trial court. See Rayl v. Shull Enterprises, Inc., 108 Idaho 524, 530, 700 P.2d 567, 573 (1985); Thompson Lumber Co., Inc. v. Cozier Container Corp., 80 Idaho 455, 333 P.2d 1004 (1958). Moore's treatise suggests that "where the court finds no clerical error, then relief for failure to in......
-
Transamerica Leasing Corp. v. Van's Realty Co.
...669-670 (1957); Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314(1) and comment 2, § 2-315 and comments 1, 4 and 5. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Cozier Container Corp., 80 Idaho 455, 33 P.2d 1004 (1958), cited by appellant, is not contrary, for there Thompson (lessor) had owned and operated the leased diesel engi......
-
Coburn v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...P.2d 883; Zollinger v. Big Lost River Irrigation District, 83 Idaho 411, 364 P.2d [86 Idaho 426] 176; Thompson Lumber Co. v. Cozier Container Corporation, 80 Idaho 455, 333 P.2d 1004. Appellant assigns error of the trial court in awarding an attorney's fee to respondents, and particularly, ......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Clover Creek Cattle Co.
...reaffirmed in First Nat. Bank v. Peterson, 47 Idaho 794 at 801, 279 P. 302 at 304 (1929).26 Thompson Lumber Co. v. Cozier Container Corporation, 80 Idaho 455 at 461, 333 P.2d 1004 at 1007 (1958).27 Guyman v. Anderson, 75 Idaho 294 at 296-297, 271 P.2d 1020 at 1021 (1954) (interest allowed o......