Clyde Dobson v. Masonite Corporation
359 F.2d 921 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The interpretation of a contract's terms to determine its essential nature, such as whether it is a contract for services or for the sale of goods, is a question of fact for the jury when the meaning of the terms is uncertain.
Facts:
- Masonite Corporation owned 9,200 acres of land in Mississippi and wanted to remove all oak and other undesirable tree species.
- In March 1963, Masonite entered into an oral agreement with Clyde Dobson for him to conduct cutting operations on the land.
- Under the agreement, Dobson was to cut all oak trees, have complete control over the operation, and sell any timber he could.
- Dobson's compensation was to be all proceeds from timber sales exceeding a set rate ($10-12 per thousand log feet) that he was required to pay Masonite.
- Dobson made significant expenditures to prepare for the job and began clearing the land.
- From March to December 1963, Dobson cleared approximately 4,000 acres of land.
- In December 1963, before the work was complete, Masonite unilaterally terminated the agreement and ordered Dobson to cease operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Clyde Dobson sued Masonite Corporation for breach of an oral contract in the United States District Court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Masonite's motion for a directed verdict was denied.
- The case was submitted to the jury on special interrogatories, asking whether the agreement was for services or for the sale of timber.
- The jury found in favor of Dobson, determining the contract was for services and assessing damages at $26,500.
- Masonite then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The district court granted Masonite's JNOV motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for Masonite.
- Dobson (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the interpretation of an oral contract's terms to determine whether it is a contract for services or for the sale of standing timber a question of fact for the jury or a question of law for the court?
Opinions:
Majority - Hutcheson, Circuit Judge
Yes, the interpretation of an oral contract's terms to determine its nature is a question of fact for the jury. The central issue was what the parties meant by the terms of their agreement, which is a classic factual inquiry. The court reasoned that while the existence and basic terms of the contract were undisputed, their meaning and the parties' intent were at the heart of the controversy, thus creating a factual question as to whether it was a service contract (clearing land) or a sales contract (selling timber). Since there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that it was a service contract, the district court judge invaded the fact-finding province of the jury by setting aside its verdict and determining the contract's 'legal effect' as a matter of law. Deciding the meaning of a contract is a question of fact that must be resolved before legal rules can be applied to determine its legal effect.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the fundamental division of labor between judge and jury in contract law. It clarifies that even when the words of a contract are not in dispute, the interpretation of what those words mean in context is a factual question for the jury. This precedent limits a judge's power to re-characterize an agreement under the guise of legal analysis, thereby protecting the jury's role as the primary finder of fact in disputes over contractual intent. The ruling is significant for cases involving oral or ambiguous contracts, ensuring that the parties' intended meaning, as determined by a jury, will govern the contract's legal classification.
