Dority v. Driesel
706 P.2d 995, 75 Or. App. 180 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A joint venture, which is governed by partnership law, does not exist when parties collaborate for mutual economic benefit but do not share profits and losses from a common pool. Instead, each party must seek and retain its own distinct profit and bear its own distinct loss from the cooperative effort.
Facts:
- Daon Corporation developed a residential lot subdivision and initiated a 'Showcase of Homes' marketing project to promote it.
- As part of the project, Driesel, a builder, purchased a lot from Daon and constructed a custom home on it for the showcase.
- Daon's role was to advertise the project, decorate the homes, and provide landscaping plans, while Driesel was responsible for building and selling his home.
- Plaintiffs negotiated the purchase of the house directly and exclusively with Driesel; Daon was not represented in the negotiations or sale documentation.
- The house had numerous defects at the time of purchase, which Driesel promised plaintiffs he would remedy.
- After the sale closed, Driesel failed to correct the defects as promised.
- Plaintiffs hired another contractor to complete the work and then made a demand on both Daon and Driesel for the cost.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Daon Corporation and Driesel in a trial court for breach of warranty and faulty workmanship.
- A default judgment for $20,000 was entered against Driesel.
- The case proceeded to trial on the issue of Daon's liability.
- The trial court found that a joint venture existed between Daon and Driesel and held Daon liable for the damages.
- Daon, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a joint venture exist between a land developer and a home builder when they collaborate on a marketing project but do not jointly share profits or losses, and each party seeks its own distinct economic gain from the arrangement?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, P. J.
No, a joint venture does not exist under these circumstances. For a joint venture to be formed, the parties must intend to share profits and losses from a joint enterprise, not merely act in concert to achieve separate economic objectives. The court reasoned that the essential elements of a partnership—sharing profits/losses and joint control—were absent. Daon's anticipated profit was from lot sales, while Driesel's was from the house sale and future construction jobs. These were distinct, several gains, not joint profits from a single business that were to be divided. The court stated, 'The profits, in whatever form earned, must be the joint property of the parties before division.' Similarly, any potential losses were unique to each party, not shared. The court also rejected the alternative theory of partnership by estoppel, finding that Daon's general promotional advertising was 'too slim a thread' to constitute a representation of a partnership upon which plaintiffs could have reasonably relied, especially since all sale negotiations and documents were exclusively with Driesel.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between a cooperative business arrangement and a legal joint venture, reinforcing that the intent to share profits and losses jointly is paramount. It protects entities from being inadvertently drawn into partnership liability simply by engaging in collaborative marketing or promotional activities. The ruling emphasizes that courts will look past the cooperative nature of an enterprise to determine if the core financial and control structures of a partnership are present. This provides a degree of certainty for businesses that wish to collaborate without creating unintended legal relationships and liabilities.
