Wachtel v. Nat'l Alfalfa Journal Co.
| Citation | 190 Iowa 1293,176 N.W. 801 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 33366.,33366. |
| Parties | WACHTEL v. NATIONAL ALFALFA JOURNAL CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Chickasaw County; H. E. Taylor, Judge.
Action for damages resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for nominal damages. She appeals. Reversed.R. Feyerbend and M. F. Condon, both of New Hampton, for appellant.
Hurd, Lenehan, Smith & O'Connor, of Dubuque, for appellee.
The defendant, the National Alfalfa Journal Company, is a corporation having a place of business at Sioux Falls, S. D. Some time prior to April 2, 1917, defendant offered prizes to persons residing in 42 counties of this state who would engage in a contest for subscriptions to the Alfalfa Journal. The territory was divided into four districts and 49 prizes were to be awarded to contestants receiving the largest number of votes in each district, based upon the number of subscriptions obtained, and also a Hudson Super-Six seven passenger touring car valued at $1,650, a grand prize to the contestant receiving the largest number of votes in the 42 counties, making 50 prizes in all. A capital prize, together with a large number of minor prizes, was offered to each of the 49 successful contestants in each district as follows:
To the one securing the largest number an upright; “likewise in each district a $150 phonograph will be awarded to the candidate who secures the third largest number of votes; a $100 diamond ring to the candidate who secures the fourth largest number of votes; a $75 diamond ring to the fifth; a $25 jewelry set to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh; a $20 gold watch to the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth; a Carola phonograph to the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth; a ‘Paragon’ 34-piece silver set to the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-first; an Eastman kodak to the thirty-second, thirty-third, thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fortieth, and forty-first; and a 26-piece set of Roger's silverware to the forty-second, forty-third, forty-fourth, forty-fifth, forty-sixth, forty-seventh, forty-eighth, forty-ninth, and fiftieth.”
The voting power of each subscription decreased as the end of the contest, which was to open April 2d and close June 16th, approached. From April 2d to May 12th each subscription obtained for one year entitled the contestant to 3,000 votes, for three years, 6,000, and for five years 15,000; from May 14th to June 2d for one year 2,000 votes, three years 4,000, five years 10,000; and from June 2d to June 16th for one year 1,000, three years 2,000, and five years 5,000.
Plaintiff accepted defendant's offer, entered the contest, and continued to work for subscriptions until April 28th, when defendant advised her by letter that the management had decided to abandon the contest in districts 3 and 4. Plaintiff resided in the latter district, but each contestant had the right to secure subscriptions anywhere without as well as within the district. At the time the contest was closed in district No. 4, on April 28th, plaintiff stood first in the number of subscriptions obtained and was entitled to more votes than any of her competitors. Each contestant failing to obtain one of the prizes was to secure a commission of 10 per cent. upon the amount turned in on subscriptions. Plaintiff alleged in her petition that on account of the termination and abandonment of the contest in district No. 4, she was deprived of a right to participate therein and win one of the prizes offered, and asks damages in the sum of $850.
Defendant in its answer admitted that a contest was begun as alleged, that plaintiff obtained subscriptions and forwarded $17 in cash to defendant, and that she was prevented by the discontinuance of the contest from further participation therein, but denied that she is entitled in any event to recover more than nominal damages. The court awarded her nominal damages, together with 10 per cent. of the amount received on subscriptions procured by her. Count 2 of plaintiff's petition will be referred to later.
I. While the facts involved in this case, together with the demand for damages for the breach of the contract alleged, are somewhat unusual, its decision is controlled by familiar elementary principles. Two reasons are urged by appellee why plaintiff can recover only nominal damages: (a) That the damages sought are too remote, speculative, and could not have been within the contemplation of the parties to the contract; and (b) that they are contingent, speculative, uncertain, and incapable of being measured by a jury.
The manifest purpose of the contest on the part of defendant was to increase the circulation and earning power of its paper. Similar contests are frequent and no doubt often, if not usually, result in substantial profit directly or indirectly to the promoter. The plan contemplates that the friends of each contestant will be generous in subscribing for the paper and more or less active in procuring others to subscribe therefor in the interest of local contestants. The purpose for which plaintiff engaged in the contest was doubtless to win one of the valuable prizes offered. As, therefore, the purpose of the contest upon the part of defendant was pecuniary profit, and of plaintiff to win a prize, both must have known and contemplated that a breach of the contract which would deprive her of the right to do so might result in substantial damages, depending largely upon the situation at the time of the breach.
[1] If only nominal damages are recoverable because of remoteness, it would make no difference whether the breach occurred in the middle of the contest, or the day before it was to close. The result would be the same. The engagement of plaintiff, although it might result in disappointment, was not an idle one. It was evidently in good faith for the purpose of aiding defendant to extend its subscription list, with whatever benefits might accrue therefrom, and to obtain, if possible, as compensation, a valuable prize. While no case exactly like the one at bar has been called to our attention, we are not entirely without precedent to sustain our conclusion that the damages are not too remote to permit recovery for the breach of the contract.
The defendant in Chaplin v. Hicks, [1911] 2 King's Bench, 786, a celebrated theatrical manager, was continuously beset with numerous applications of actresses for employment. He conceived a plan by which he was to select 24 photographs from the number offered, have them published in a newspaper, and the readers thereof to select 12 therefrom as winners, to the first four of whom an engagement would be given for three years at £5 per week, to the second 4 for three years at £4 per week, and to the third 4 for three years at £3 per week. The response to the announcement in the newspaper was prompt, and about 6,000 photographs were sent in. The plan as outlined was modified so that the defendant, with the assistance of a committee, selected about 300 photographs to be published in the paper. The United Kingdom was divided into ten districts, and the photographs of the selected candidates in each district submitted to the readers of the newspaper therein, who were given the privilege of choosing by their votes whom they considered the most beautiful. The 50 photographs were then published in the newspaper, together with a ballot paper on which the reader registered his vote for the particular one he preferred, adding signature and address. Plaintiff appeared first in her particular section as one of the 50 eligible contestants. The defendant caused a letter to be written to plaintiff asking her to call at a place named, on the afternoon of January 6th, to see him. The letter was sent to the address given by plaintiff in her application and delivery thereof sought on January 5th. Plaintiff was, however, at the time filling an engagement at another place, to which the letter was forwarded, but failed to reach her in time to enable her to keep the appointment, thereby preventing her from competing as one of the 12 for the employment. Failing to procure another appointment with the defendant, she brought suit for damages, alleging that defendant breached the contract by failing to take reasonable means to give her an opportunity to present herself for selection. The jury awarded damages to the amount of £ 100. Counsel for defendant contended that the damages sought by plaintiff could not be recovered for the reason that same was too remote and impossible of admeasurement. The court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial