Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Oklahoma Supreme Court - 1962 OK 267, 382 P.2d 109
Tags: Expectation Damages
See also: Jacobs & Young v. Kent
tl;dr:
Where the cost of performance far "outstrips" any diminution in value, use the latter to determine damages.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1962 case Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Company, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with a contract disagreement between a landowner (the Peevyhouses) and a mining company (Garland Coal & Mining). The landowners leased their farm to the mining company, and as part of the contract, the company agreed to fix any mining-related damages once the lease ended. However, the company didn't complete these repairs, resulting in a lawsuit for $25,000 in damages.
The district court found the mining company in breach of contract and instructed the jury to award damages based on the cost of repairs and the decreased value of the property. The jury decided on $5,000 in damages, which was more than the worth of the farm even after proposed repairs. Both parties appealed.
The Supreme Court partially agreed and disagreed with the district court's ruling. They believed damages should not be the repair cost but instead, the lost value of the property. They argued that basing damages on repair cost would lead to financial waste and unfair benefits since the benefits gained from repairing the property were significantly less than the cost itself.
This case is crucial in understanding the principle of damages for contract breaches and its limits to prevent financial waste and injustice. It also highlights how courts balance contractual terms with equitable considerations in contract disputes. This case is relevant for anyone involved in contracts to understand their rights and obligations if a breach occurs.
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.