Trujillo v. Glen Falls Inc., Co.
Decision Date | 29 August 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 9947,9947 |
Citation | 1975 NMSC 46,540 P.2d 209,88 N.M. 279 |
Parties | Gilbert TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLEN FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, Underwriters Adjusting Company and Betty Cooper, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Bernalillo County in favor of defendants, denying a claim by plaintiff Gilbert Trujillo for specific performance of an alleged oral contract.
On August 9, 1971, plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which was involved in a collision with a truck driven by F. B. Stutz. At the time of the accident, Mr. Stutz was insured by defendant Glen Falls Insurance Company (Glen Falls). Defendant Underwriters Adjusting Company (Underwriters) was hired by Glen Falls to adjust the claim of plaintiff against Mr. Stutz. Defendant Betty Cooper was an employee of Underwriters and was in charge of plaintiff's file. From August 13, 1971, to October 15, 1971, ten advance payments totaling $2,380.13 were made by Glen Falls to plaintiff for lost wages, medical expenses, travel and lodging. Upon receipt of each of the ten checks, plaintiff signed a 'Receipt for Advance Payment' which read in part:
'This is to acknowledge receipt of $_ _ paid on behalf of Glen Falls Ins. Co. to be credited to the total amount of any final settlement or judgment in my/our favor * * *.'
On or about December 10, 1971, plaintiff retained, William Marchiondo to represent him in this matter. After contacting defendant Underwriters, Mr. Marchiondo was furnished copies of the receipts on December 13, 1971. From the time Mr. Marchiondo was retained until October 30, 1972, he engaged in settlement negotiations with Ms. Cooper. On or about October 30, 1972, Ms. Cooper conferred with Mr. Marchiondo by telephone and offered $7,500 in settlement of Mr. Trujillo's claim. During this conversation, there was no mention made by either Ms. Cooper or Mr. Marchiondo as to whether or not the $7,500 would include the payments previously made by defendant Glen Falls. Subsequently, Ms. Cooper forwarded a release and check totaling $4,531.47. The release was based on the check sent to Mr. Marchiondo, $2,380.13 in previous payments, plus an additional amount to be paid to Dr. Myron Rosenbaum for medical expenses. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Marchiondo returned the release and check to Ms. Cooper, indicating that he was under the impression that the $7,500 was 'over and above' the previous payments. Suit was then brought by plaintiff against Glen Falls, Underwriters and Betty Cooper for specific performance of the alleged $7,500 oral agreement. Defendants denied the formation of any contract whatsoever.
After trial without a jury, the court concluded that the parties were under a mutual mistake of fact, there was no 'meeting of the minds,' defendant Betty Cooper was without authority to offer more than a total of $7,500 in settlement, and thus no enforceable contract was entered into. On November 20, 1973, plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's contention on appeal is that a contract was formed based on the objective manifestations of the parties; that this contract should be interpreted according to the mutually expressed assent of the parties; and that the undisclosed or secret intent of one party is irrelevant.
It is elementary in contract law that mutual assent must be expressed by the parties to the agreement. This court stated in Lamonica v. Bosenberg,73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217 (1964):
* * *.'
In support of this principle the court cited the case of West v. Downer, 218 Ga. 235 241, 127 S.E.2d 359, 364 (1962), where it is stated:
'* * *. * * *.'
This mutuality requirement must be found in the objective manifestations of the parties.
'* * *. * * *'
Higgins v. Cauhape, 33 N.M. 11, 14, 261 P. 813, 814 (1927). See also State ex rel. Santa Fe Sand & G. Co. v. Pecos Const. Co., 86 N.M. 58, 61, 519 P.2d 294, 297 (1974), where this court said:
'* * *. Also, the controlling intention of the parties is the mutually expressed assent and not the secret intent of a party. * * *'
And according to 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 32, at 640 (1963):
'The apparent mutual assent, essential to the formation of a contract, must be gathered from the language employed by them, or manifested by their words or acts, and it may be manifested...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyler Grp. Partners, LLC v. Madera
...any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.’ " Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217 ). Courts look to the "objecti......
-
Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc., 13767
...that a mutual agreement was objectively manifested by each party." This reading of Garcia is consistent with Trujillo v. Glen Falls Insurance Co., 88 N.M. 279, 540 P.2d 209 (1975), which was cited byGarcia as the support for the quoted proposition. Trujillo, after quoting a Georgia opinion ......
-
Tyler Grp. Partners v. Madera
...on any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.'” Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217). Courts look to the “object......
-
Tyler Grp. Partners v. Madera
...on any part or provision of a proposed contract, all of its portions are a nullity.'” Trujillo v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 1975-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 279, 280, 540 P.2d 209, 210 (quoting Lamonica v. Bosenberg, 1964-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 73 N.M. 452, 455, 389 P.2d 216, 217). Courts look to the “object......