Business Law 11th Edition by Kenneth Clarkson,Roger LeRoy Miller,Gaylord Jentz,Frank Cross

تمرين 14

Hanson v. Boeder
Supreme Court of North Dakota, 2007. 2007 ND 20, 727 N.W.2d 280.
www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions.htm a
a. Click on the "By ND citation" link. In the result, click on "2007" and then the name of the case to access the opinion. The North Dakota Supreme Court maintains this Web site.
MARING, Justice.
* * * *
In 1998, [Paul] Hanson signed a five-year lease to farm approximately 1,350 tillable acres of [Douglas] Boeder's farmland in Steele County [North Dakota] for $50 per acre beginning with the 1999 crop year. The lease also allowed Hanson use of grain bins with a capacity of 93,000 bushels and two machine sheds located on the property. The lease addressed * * * the requirement that Hanson farm the land in a good and farmerlike manner:
* * * *
[Hanson] agrees to farm the land in a good and farmerlike manner and also agrees to leave the land tilled in the same manner as when he received it.
Hanson was required to pay cash rent of $67,515 per year, with half due on April 1st, and the balance due on November 1st. In 2003, Boeder and Hanson renewed the lease for another five-year period ending in 2008.
During the leases, Boeder and Hanson disagreed about Hanson's farming practices, but in 2004 and 2005 their disagreements escalated. On August 2, 2005, Boeder told Hanson he had enough of Hanson's farming practices, the lease was over, and he had leased the land to someone else. Boeder also told Hanson not to do the fall tillage because the new tenant wanted to do the work himself.
Hanson sued Boeder [in a North Dakota state court], alleging Boeder intended to breach the contract by leasing the land to a third party. Hanson * * * requested all damages caused by Boeder's breach of the lease. * * * During this time, Hanson continued to farm the land and completed the 2005 fall tillage * * *.
After a February 2006 bench trial [a trial before a judge or judges only], the * * * court found Boeder's statement to Hanson that the lease was over and he had found a new tenant constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the lease. The court * * * [found that] Boeder's repudiation was not justified because Hanson had farmed the land in a "good and farmerlike manner," and had not breached the lease. The court awarded Hanson $315,194.26 in damages and costs for lost profits, lost use of the grain bins and machine sheds, and the value of the fall tillage. [Boeder appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.]
* * * *
Boeder argues the [lower] court misapplied the law by failing to apply the doctrine of avoidable consequences [mitigation] to reduce Hanson's damages. He claims Hanson did not mitigate his damages because Hanson had an opportunity to continue farming the Boeder land, which would have substantially reduced his damages, and chose not to.
* * * *
* * * For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except when otherwise expressly provided by the laws of this state, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract if they are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin. [Emphasis added.]
A person injured by the wrongful acts of another has a duty to mitigate or minimize the damages and must protect himself if he can do so with reasonable exertion or at trifling expense, and can recover from the delinquent party only such damages as he could not, with reasonable effort, have avoided. The duty to mitigate damages is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of avoidable consequences. [Emphasis added.]
The [lower] court found that Hanson tried to mitigate his damages by looking for other farmland to rent, but was unsuccessful. The court also found that Hanson was farming 4,000 acres including the land he leased from Boeder, but had the manpower and equipment to farm up to 5,000 acres. The court concluded that even if Hanson was able to find other farmland to rent, it would not have been replacement land but land to expand his farming operation, and therefore it would not have reduced his damages.
The evidence presented at trial supports the court's findings. Hanson testified that he was not aware of any farmland available for rent and he ran advertisements in the local newspapers looking for farmland to rent. He also testified that during the course of the lease, he was farming a total of 4,000 acres but he had the ability to farm 5,000 acres, and he was always looking for more land to rent to expand his farming operation.
Boeder agrees that Hanson attempted to find other farmland to rent and admits he did not present any evidence to rebut Hanson's claim that he was unable to find any other land available to rent.* * *
* * * *
* * * We * * * conclude the [lower] court did not misapply the law in finding Hanson attempted to mitigate his damages. The evidence supports the court's findings on lost profits, and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction the court made a mistake in awarding Hanson damages for lost profits.
* * * *
We affirm the judgment.
1. During the trial, Boeder tried to retract his repudiation of the lease to allow Hanson to continue farming for the rest of the lease term. Should the court have considered this an acceptable substitute to mitigate Hanson's damages Why or why not
2. Hanson initially asked the lower court to enforce the contract and requested damages only in the alternative-that is, only if specific performance was not available (pleading in the alternative is discussed later in this chapter). Could the court have awarded Hanson specific performance of the lease in this case Should that relief have been granted Explain.