Denver N. Davison

In Darrow v. Spencer, the parties formed an oral contract for the sale of hay at $1.50 per bale, but disagreed on whether it required Dr. Darrow to sell all hay grown on his farm during the 1975 season. After delivering the first two cuttings, Dr. Darrow refused further sales at that price, leading Mr. Spencer to sue for breach and seek damages for moldy or light bales and the higher cost of replacement hay purchased elsewhere. The trial court found a breach of a contract covering all 1975 hay and awarded damages plus attorney fees, but the appellate court held that the UCC Statute of Frauds (12A O.S. § 2-201) limited enforceability to the quantity of goods admitted by the seller in pleadings or testimony. Accordingly, the court reversed the award of $3,500 for undelivered future cuttings while affirming the $100 award for light bales and the $345 offset on the cross-petition, and it remanded for reconsideration of attorney fees due to lack of evidence on reasonableness.

business & regulatory

The case involved a products liability action in which plaintiffs sued manufacturers, including Minnesota Mining, for injuries from chemical fumes; after plaintiffs failed to respond to requests for admissions, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions. Plaintiffs then filed an untimely "motion to reconsider" more than ten days later, which the trial court treated as a motion for new trial and granted, vacating the judgment. Minnesota Mining sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which assumed original jurisdiction and granted the writ. The court reasoned that the motion was in substance a new trial motion that had to be filed within ten days under statute, no appeal was taken, and the motion did not satisfy the specific grounds required under the vacation statutes such as 12 O.S. § 1031, rendering the trial court's action beyond its jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned an application by Larry Cabelka for a temporary permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to appropriate 400 acre feet of water annually from a spring for recreation, housing, and irrigation uses; the Board granted the permit treating the water as ground water, but the City of Lawton protested on grounds that the spring fed a definite stream within the watershed of its municipal water supply lake. After the Board reaffirmed its order, the City sought judicial review, and the district court reversed, holding that the water must be classified as stream water. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that under Title 60 O.S. § 60 and Title 82 O.S. § 105.1, spring water that forms a definite stream is public stream water from its inception and cannot be appropriated as ground water by encasing the spring; the Board therefore erred in granting the permit without following stream-water appropriation procedures. The court also noted the Board's inadequate findings of fact as an independent basis for reversal.

environmentproperty

The case involved a buyer of used dry cleaning equipment who sued the seller and a subsequent owner for breach of warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation after the equipment malfunctioned and was not rebuilt as promised. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence and entered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the court held that evidence of consequential damages from excess use of cleaning fluid was sufficient to submit the breach of warranty claim to a jury under the UCC, but there was insufficient evidence to prove the fraud claim or direct damages from the difference in value of the goods. The court therefore affirmed dismissal of the fraud claim, reversed on the warranty claim regarding consequential damages, and remanded for a new trial on that issue.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Former Weatherford police officer Bill Dill sued the city, its mayor, police chief, and city council members for slander, claiming the chief made public false accusations of illegal conduct such as selling beer to minors and that the statements were part of a conspiracy to justify his demotion and deter a lawsuit. A jury awarded Dill $30,000 in actual damages and $35,000 in punitive damages against the chief, mayor, and city. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the judgments against the mayor and city, holding that Dill failed to present independent evidence establishing a prima facie case of conspiracy, which rendered the chief's out-of-court statements inadmissible hearsay against the other defendants. It affirmed the actual damages award against the chief but reversed the punitive damages award against him due to prejudice from the jury's consideration of the other defendants' wealth, and remanded for reconsideration of punitive damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the First National Bank of Guthrie seeking to enforce an assignment of future renewal commissions from an insurance company as collateral for two defaulted consumer loans made to John M. Brown, who had discharged the debts in bankruptcy. The trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed the action, ruling the assignment unenforceable under Oklahoma's Consumer Credit Code, and awarded attorney fees to Brown. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed that the renewal commissions qualified as "earnings" under 14A O.S.1971 § 1-301(8), making the assignment prohibited and unenforceable by 14A O.S.1971 § 3-403. The court reversed the attorney fee award because it was improperly granted under 12 O.S.1971 § 936 rather than the Consumer Credit Code provision at 14A O.S.1971 § 5-202(8), remanded for reconsideration under the correct statute, and awarded additional appeal-related fees at its discretion.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure