Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialleaseunjust enrichmentimplied contract
contracttortplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialleasepunitive damagescompensatory damagesimplied contract

Related Cases

Long Island Airports Limousine Service Corp. v. Northwest Airlines, 124 A.D.2d 711, 508 N.Y.S.2d 223
View Case »
Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc. v. HRS Properties, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 193
View Case »
Jones v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 493, 330 P.3d 475, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 53
View Case »
Jacobs v. Rosemount Dodge-Winnebago South, 310 N.W.2d 71, 32 UCC Rep.Serv. 456
View Case »
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 492 So.2d 1331 (Table)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc. v. Reliance Truck Co., 126 Ariz. 246, 614 P.2d 327

Facts

The plaintiff, John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc., leased a crane to the Ashton Company for construction work. Reliance Truck Company was hired to transport the crane but used it without permission to unload a transformer at a different job site. The plaintiff discovered the unauthorized use and subsequently sued Reliance for conversion and implied contract. The trial court initially awarded damages for conversion, but this was later reduced by the Court of Appeals.

The facts necessary for determination of this matter are as follows: Plaintiff in an agreement dated July 1, 1975, leased its crane to the Ashton Company for use in Tucson, Arizona, in the construction of the addition to the University Stadium.

Issue

1) Can the plaintiff recover on a theory of conversion from the defendant? 2) If not, is the plaintiff entitled to judgment based on an implied contract theory?

The issues presented are (1) can plaintiff, Artukovich, recover on a theory of conversion from the defendant, Reliance, and (2) if not, is plaintiff entitled to judgment based on an implied contract theory.

Rule

Before a plaintiff can recover for wrongful detention of property, they must show they had a legal right to use the property and were prevented from such use only by the defendant's wrongful detention.

Before plaintiff can recover in an action for the wrongful detention of its property it must show that it had a legal right to use the property and was in a position to use it and was prevented from such use only by the defendant's wrongful detention.

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiff could not recover for conversion because the lessee had taken possession of the crane, meaning the plaintiff no longer had the right to use it at the time of the defendant's unauthorized use. However, the court found that the defendant was liable under the theory of unjust enrichment since they benefited from using the crane without compensating the plaintiff.

Although plaintiff may not recover on its tort theory, Count II of the complaint set forth a claim based on implied contract. It is clear from the trial court's minute entry of November 3, 1978, that the trial judge found sufficient evidence to support plaintiff's claim based on an implied contract.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for conversion and directed that the case be remanded to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the unjust enrichment claim, with a re-trial on the issue of damages.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to Superior Court with direction to enter judgment for the plaintiff on Count II of the Complaint, and proceed to re-try only the issue of damages.

Who won?

The plaintiff, John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc., prevailed because the court found that the defendant was unjustly enriched by using the crane without compensation.

After trial to the court plaintiff, John A. Artukovich & Sons, Inc., was granted judgment for compensatory damages of $6,956.59 and punitive damages of $6,000.00 against defendant, Reliance Truck Company, for conversion of plaintiff's crane.

You must be