Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Oklahoma Supreme Court - 382 P.2d 109
Tags: Contracts, Expectation damages, Breach, Remedies, Damages
tl;dr:
Plaintiff leased land to Defendant for coal mining. One condition was that Defendant would strip mine and do remedial work to repair the land afterward. However, this work was not done, and it diminished the value of Plaintiff’s property.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1962 case Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with a breach of contract related to land restoration after coal mining. The trial court had awarded damages to the plaintiffs, Willie and Lucille Peevyhouse, because the defendant, Garland Coal & Mining Co., did not perform the agreed-upon restoration work. The defendant appealed, claiming no breach occurred and the plaintiffs were not owed damages or specific performance.
The main question was whether the plaintiffs could receive damages or specific performance for the breach. The court ruled that plaintiffs could receive damages, but only for the decrease in their land value due to the defendant's non-performance. The court explained that damages are the typical remedy for contract breaches unless they are inadequate or impractical, and specific performance is granted only when damages are insufficient and the contract's terms are clear.
The court used the doctrine of substantial performance, which allows a party with minor contract defects to enforce the contract against the other party. This case demonstrates how courts handle land restoration contracts and use damages and specific performance doctrines to prevent unfair outcomes or hardships from breached contracts. The case highlights the court's effort to balance both parties' interests while avoiding unreasonable outcomes. The decision remains controversial, with a dissenting opinion by Justice Irwin.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Peevyhouses sued Garland Coal and Mining Company for breach of contract after the defendant failed to perform restorative and remedial work as agreed in a lease contract for coal mining purposes. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs a lesser amount than what they sued for, and the appeal focuses on whether the court properly instructed the jury on the measure of damages. The issue is whether the measure of damages for breach of contract is the cost of obtaining performance of the work not done or the difference in market value before and after the work was performed. The court must determine the appropriate measure of damages in this case, considering expert testimony on the cost and nature of the work and the "diminution in value" of the farm resulting from the defendant's failure to perform as agreed. The court notes that principles of law based on reason and reality must be applied to these situations, and that the building and construction or grading and excavation analogies are not applicable to the lease contract in question. The primary purpose of the lease was to recover and market coal, and the provisions for remedial work were incidental to this main objective. The plaintiffs cite the Groves v. John Wunder Co. case, where the Minnesota court adopted the "cost of performance" rule instead of the "value" rule in a similar situation. However, the defendant relies on three previous cases where the "value" rule was followed instead of the "cost of performance" rule.
The defendant breached a coal mining lease by failing to fulfill obligations agreed upon in the contract, which the dissenting opinion argues was willful and not in good faith. The cost of performing the contract was reasonable and there were no unexpected conditions that would make performance unreasonable. The defendant received the benefits of the contract and cannot argue that the measure of damages should be the economic value of performance to the plaintiffs rather than the cost of performance. The defendant entered into the contract believing it would be economically advantageous to do so and must be held accountable for its breach.
The plaintiffs in the Peevyhouse case filed a Petition for Rehearing, alleging that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the total value of their farm, which includes lands beyond the 60 acres covered by the coal mining lease. The plaintiffs only described the 60 acres in their petition, and the defense objected to any testimony about improvements made to the plaintiff's property other than the 60 acres described in the petition, which the court sustained. The plaintiffs argue that they have not had their "day in court" due to the exclusion of evidence. However, the trial court properly excluded evidence concerning lands other than the 60 acres described in the petition because it was not within the scope of the pleadings. The plaintiffs tried their case based on the belief that the "cost of performance" was the only measure of damages and refused to recognize any other measure. The defendant presented evidence on the reduction in value of the property, which decreased from $60.00 to $11.00 per acre after the mining operation, and that the property's value would increase by $2.00 to $5.00 per acre after repairs were made.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.