Valcarce v. Bitters, No. 9323
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CROCKETT; WADE |
| Citation | 362 P.2d 427,12 Utah 2d 61 |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 9323 |
| Parties | d 61 Edward E. VALCARCE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Reed BITTERS and his wife, Roma Bitters, Defendants and Respondents. |
Page 427
v.
Reed BITTERS and his wife, Roma Bitters, Defendants and
Respondents.
Page 428
[12 UTAH2D 62] Sherma Hansen, Brigham City, for appellant.
Olson & Calderwood, Logan, for respondents.
CROCKETT, Justice.
Edward E. Valcarce sued the defendants, Bitters, to contest the validity of a $2,700 promissory note which he had executed and delivered to them, and which they had assigned to Financial Service Company. From adverse judgment plaintiff appeals.
The parties are mink ranchers and had dealings together over a period of years. In January 1958, Valcarce desired to acquire some breeder stock mink for his ranch in Box Elder County. Defendants let him have 150 females and 30 males, for which he gave them a check for $1,500; and at that time, or within a day or two thereafter, he also gave them the promissory note which is the subject of this suit.
The position essayed by the plaintiff at the trial, and in which he persists here, is that the defendants, Bitters, were pressed for cash and were going to 'pelt down' quite a number of their mink; that they agreed to sell these 180 mink to plaintiff to use as breeder stock, but at pelt prices, which are lower than the usual price for breeder mink, and that the $1,500 check paid for them; and that the $2,700 note was given in consideration of a proposed 'side agreement' by which defendants were either a) to deliver to him an unspecified number of additional mink; or b) to apply it on a transaction by which Bitters would deliver to Valcarce's ranch additional mink to be 'ranched' on some arrangement to be agreed upon, such as a fifty-fifty basis; or c) to return the note to Mr. Valcarce. He argues that this agreement not having been fulfilled, the consideration for the note failed; and that it should be cancelled, or he should have damages.
On the other hand, the defendants contend that both the $1,500 and the $2,700 note were given to pay for the mink which were delivered. They do not disagree that there [12 UTAH2D 63] was some discussion about the possible future transaction of the general nature referred to by the plaintiff, but deny that any such agreement was entered into.
The trial court found the facts in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff: that the plaintiff had received the mink as value for the note; and that the plaintiff had failed to prove any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Assoc., No. 20050265-CA.
...its terms are indefinite.'" (quoting Richard Barton Enters. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 373 (Utah 1996))); Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961) ("A condition precedent to the enforcement of any contract is that there be a meeting of the minds of the parties, which must b......
-
Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case 2:16–cv–00966–CW–DBP
...to be enforced." Pingree v. Cont'l Grp. of Utah, Inc. , 558 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Utah 1976) (quoting Valcarce v. Bitters , 12 Utah 2d 61, 63, 362 P.2d 427 (1961) ). Standardized contracts of adhesion do not squarely fit within a traditional analysis of contractual intent, and the task becomes p......
-
Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, Nos. 940295
...of a contract. See Pingree v. Continental Group of Utah, Inc., 558 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Utah 1976); Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961). An agreement cannot be enforced if its terms are indefinite or demonstrate that there was no intent to contract. Valcarce, 362 P.2d a......
-
Hone v. Advanced Shoring & Underpinning, Inc., No. 20110256–CA.
...v. Albrecht, 2004 UT 13, ¶ 10, 86 P.3d 728 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961). Therefore, “if the essential terms are so uncertain that there is no basis for deciding whether the agreement has been kept or bro......
-
Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Assoc., No. 20050265-CA.
...its terms are indefinite.'" (quoting Richard Barton Enters. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 373 (Utah 1996))); Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961) ("A condition precedent to the enforcement of any contract is that there be a meeting of the minds of the parties, which must b......
-
Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case 2:16–cv–00966–CW–DBP
...to be enforced." Pingree v. Cont'l Grp. of Utah, Inc. , 558 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Utah 1976) (quoting Valcarce v. Bitters , 12 Utah 2d 61, 63, 362 P.2d 427 (1961) ). Standardized contracts of adhesion do not squarely fit within a traditional analysis of contractual intent, and the task becomes p......
-
Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, Nos. 940295
...of a contract. See Pingree v. Continental Group of Utah, Inc., 558 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Utah 1976); Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961). An agreement cannot be enforced if its terms are indefinite or demonstrate that there was no intent to contract. Valcarce, 362 P.2d a......
-
Hone v. Advanced Shoring & Underpinning, Inc., No. 20110256–CA.
...v. Albrecht, 2004 UT 13, ¶ 10, 86 P.3d 728 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 362 P.2d 427, 428 (1961). Therefore, “if the essential terms are so uncertain that there is no basis for deciding whether the agreement has been kept or bro......