Rashid v. Jolly
2009 MT 296 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A right of first refusal in a contract for personal property is enforceable if it does not unreasonably restrain alienation, but damages for its breach are limited to the difference between the sale price and the market value, and punitive damages or attorney fees are generally not available for breach of contract unless specific statutory or contractual exceptions apply.
Facts:
- In 1999, Laura Rashid agreed to sell her mule, Fancy, to Dave Jolly.
- As consideration for the mule, Dave Jolly agreed to train two of Laura Rashid's donkeys.
- After Dave Jolly took possession of Fancy, the parties signed a "bill of sale" which included a clause stating that if Dave Jolly decided to sell or dispose of Fancy, Laura Rashid would be notified and given a right of first refusal.
- Laura Rashid also transferred some custom-made tack fitted specifically to Fancy to Dave Jolly, which was not listed in the bill of sale regarding its disposition upon sale of the mule.
- In September 2004, Dave Jolly sold Fancy to a family in Idaho without first notifying Laura Rashid.
- Several months later, Laura Rashid confronted Dave Jolly, who told her he "relinquished ownership" to his best friend in Idaho.
- Laura Rashid wrote to Dave Jolly, inquiring about the sale, but he responded he did not know the name or address of the new owners.
- Laura Rashid subsequently made two trips to Idaho to locate Fancy and satisfy herself that the mule was being satisfactorily cared for. Dave Jolly sold Fancy for $2,800, and her market value was $3,500.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Rashid, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Dave Jolly in the Flathead County Justice Court, generally seeking to recover costs and for the return of Fancy, or other relief.
- The Justice Court entered judgment against Dave Jolly in the amount of $3,016.09.
- Dave Jolly appealed the Justice Court's judgment to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County.
- The District Court conducted a trial de novo and concluded that Dave Jolly breached the contract, awarding Laura Rashid $7,064.30 in compensatory and incidental damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and $8,413.29 in attorney fees and costs.
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 seller breach an enforceable right of first refusal by failing to notify the contract holder before selling personal property, and if so, are the contract holder's damages limited to the difference between the sale price and market value, without punitive damages or attorney fees for a breach of contract claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice John Warner
Yes, a seller breaches an enforceable right of first refusal by failing to notify the contract holder before selling personal property, and the contract holder's damages are indeed limited to the difference between the sale price and market value, generally without punitive damages or attorney fees in a breach of contract action. The Supreme Court affirmed that the right of first refusal clause was enforceable, rejecting Jolly’s argument that it constituted an invalid restraint on alienation. Citing Urquhart v. Teller, the Court noted that there was no fixed price greatly disproportionate to market value, nor evidence that the primary purpose was to restrain alienability. Instead, the agreement was freely entered into and promoted the transfer of property. Thus, Jolly's failure to notify Rashid and offer her the chance to purchase Fancy before selling the mule to a third party clearly breached the contract. However, the Court reversed the District Court's damage award, holding it erroneous. Under Section 27-1-311, MCA, and McPherson v. Schlemmer, the measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount that compensates the aggrieved party for the detriment proximately caused, which for an animal is its value. Since Jolly sold Fancy for $2,800 and her market value was $3,500, Rashid's damages were limited to $700 (the difference). The Court found awards for tack, shipping costs (not paid by Rashid), and training costs (part of the original consideration) to be inappropriate. Rashid's travel expenses to Idaho were also disallowed as incidental damages because they did not arise from a contractual obligation and were not necessary, as information could have been obtained through legal discovery. The Court underscored that while affection for animals is recognized, a mule is personal property, and well-intentioned trips to ensure its care do not give rise to incidental damages for breach of contract. The Court also reversed the punitive damages award. Pursuant to Section 27-1-220(2)(a)(i), (ii), MCA, punitive damages are not allowed for actions arising from a contract or its breach, unless clear and convincing evidence supports actual fraud or malice outside the contract context. Jolly's statements regarding the purchaser's identity, made after the breach, did not constitute actual fraud under Section 27-1-221(3), (4), MCA, as Rashid suffered no injury from relying on them. The deliberate breach itself, being within the contract context, did not warrant punitive damages. Finally, the Court reversed the award of attorney fees. It reiterated the general rule from Blue Ridge Homes, Inc. v. Thein, that attorney fees are recoverable only where a statute or contract provides for them. Rashid’s arguments for attorney fees, citing various statutes for the first time on appeal, were found inapplicable or insufficient, as the District Court had provided no basis for the award, and the statutory conditions (e.g., vexatiously multiplying proceedings, violation of farm animal protection act by an owner) were not met.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limitations on damages recoverable for breach of contract, especially concerning personal property where sentimental value may be present but not legally compensable. It reinforces the principle that contract damages are generally limited to the benefit of the bargain (i.e., the direct pecuniary loss) and that incidental damages must proximately flow from a contractual obligation. Furthermore, the ruling strictly limits the availability of punitive damages and attorney fees in breach of contract actions, requiring evidence of actual fraud or malice independent of the breach itself for punitive damages, and specific statutory or contractual authorization for attorney fees. This decision serves as a reminder to practitioners of the narrow scope of available remedies in contract disputes and the importance of properly pleading and proving all elements of damages and fees at the trial court level.
