Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada

Decision Date14 July 1976
PartiesVOTAW PRECISION TOOL CO., INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AIR CANADA, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 47442.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Roger K. Patterson, Whittier, for plaintiff and appellant.

Bolton & Hemer, by Donald H. Moore, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.

ROTH, Presiding Justice.

Votaw Precision Tool Co., Inc., a California corporation (appellant), appeals from a judgment denying its request for declaratory relief against Air Canada, a corporation (respondent).

On or about July 17, 1970, Air Canada contracted with Inca Engineering Company (Inca) whereby Inca agreed to supply respondent with a thrust bed and adapter (thrust bed) to enable respondent to measure the pounds of thrust of jet aircraft engines in return for a consideration in the amount of $395,377.12.

As a part of said contract, Inca supplied respondent with a performance bond in the sum of $193,798.50 issued by Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.

Inca subcontracted with appellant which had agreed to furnish the fabrication for the thrust bed, and make the superstructure for the stand of the thrust bed in return for $106,000.

When respondent received the thrust bed, it had paid Inca the sum of $352,262.70, and Inca had paid to appellant all of the consideration it had promised except the sum of $17,723.40. Respondent discovered that the thrust bed failed to perform as required; specifically it failed to measure the thrust of the engines up to 100,000 pounds as required by the specifications of respondent's contract with Inca.

When respondent discovered that the thrust bed did not meet the specifications as required, it elected to withhold $43,114.42 as partial damages which it had suffered under its contract with Inca.

At the time of said withholding, Inca was indebted to appellant in the sum of $17,723.40 on its subcontract with appellant and Inca was in receivership. Appellant by this action asserts that respondent is legally responsible to it under one of the provisions of respondent's contract with Inca which provides:

'Before making any payment on any progress or final estimate, the airline (respondent) may require the contractor (Inca) to satisfy the architect or other authorized representatives of * * * (respondent) that all claims against * * * (Inca) * * * for labor, services, plant, equipment, materials or things employed, hired or supplied upon or for * * * (thrust bed) have been paid or satisfied or, if any such claims are found to exist, * * * (Inca) shall pay the same forwith * * *.'

The trial court found and held that: there was no direct contractual relationship between appellant and respondent; respondent's anticipated damages far exceeded the amount withheld; and that respondent had the right to withhold payment to Inca in support of its claim for damages.

Respondent has not filed a brief and thus Rule 17(b) of the California Rules of Court is applicable to this appeal. Courts have differed in the application of this rule with some taking a strict view and holding that the failure to file a brief was in effect a consent to a reversal (Grand v. Griesinger (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 397, 325 P.2d 475), or an abandonment of any attempt to support the judgment. (Roth v. Keene (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 725, 64 Cal.Rptr. 399.) Since the burden is always on the appellant to show error, other courts have taken the position that the failure to file a brief does not require an automatic reversal. (Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 330 P.2d 829; Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 74 Cal.Rptr. 749.) The better rule and the one which we follow is to examine the record on the basis of appellant's brief and to reverse only if prejudicial error is found. (Baldwin v. Baldwin (1944)67 Cal.App.2d 175, 153 P.2d 567; Jarvis v. O'Brien (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 758, 305 P.2d 961.)

Appellant makes no contention that there was any kind of statutory lien involved in its dispute with respondent. Its contention is that appellant is a third party beneficiary of the contract between Inca and respondent.

Under the doctrine of substantial performance, it is settled that Inca was entitled to the contract price less any damages caused by its failure to perform, i.e., its failure to supply a thrust bed in accordance with the contract specifications. (3A Corbin on Contracts, §§ 701 et seq., pp. 314 et seq. (1960); 5 Williston on Contracts, §§ 700 et seq., pp. 361 et seq. (3d ed. 1961). See also Thomas Haverty Co. v. Jones (1921) 185 Cal. 285, 197 P. 105.) The trial court found that: Inca had breached the contract, full performance had not been rendered, and that damages to respondent were far in excess of the amount withheld by respondent. Acceptance of appellant's legal theory is of no help since appellant as a third party beneficiary cannot assert greater rights than Inca under the contract. (Rest. of Law, Contracts, § 140; Pace v. Rizzuto (1966) (La.App.) 182 So.2d 809; 4 Corbin on Contracts, § 819, p. 277 (1951); 2 Williston on Contracts, § 395, p. 1066 (3d ed. 1959); cf. Certified Industries, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co. (1964) 43 Misc.2d 761, 252 N.Y.S.2d 345; Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Jardel Co. (3d Cir. 1970) 421 F.2d 1048.) Williston, Supra at page 1066, states:

'As the substantial matter the parties had in mind was the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • People v. Trevisanut
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • 28 Agosto 1984
    ...... (Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 52, 55, 131 ......
  • Bryce C., In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 26 Diciembre 1995
    ......'s brief and to reverse only if prejudicial error is found." (Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 52, 55, 131 ......
  • Warford v. Medeiros
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 15 Octubre 1984
    ...... [Citations.]" (Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 52, 55, 131 ......
  • Camelot Excavating Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 3 Febrero 1981
    ...See 1 Restatement Contracts, § 140, pp. 165-166; 4 Corbin on Contracts, § 820, p. 278. See also Votaw Precision Tool Co., Inc. v. Air Canada, 60 Cal.App.3d 52, 56, 131 Cal.Rptr. 335 (1976); Rumsey Electric Co. v. University of Delaware, supra, 334 A.2d 226, We find no violation of public po......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT