Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 167 views

    Baker v. Bailey

    Uploaded by

    Sawyer Like
    The Baileys lived in a mobile home and drew water from the same pipeline as the previous owner's home. When the previous owner sold to the Bakers, they entered a water use agreement ensuring the Baileys had access. However, the Bakers later said they would not transfer water rights to any buyers of the Baileys' land. The agreement unambiguously stated only the Baileys would benefit, so extrinsic evidence of implied intentions was inadmissible. The court found no express term was breached and thus no breach of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Baker v. Bailey

    Uploaded by

    Sawyer Like
    167 views3 pages
    The Baileys lived in a mobile home and drew water from the same pipeline as the previous owner's home. When the previous owner sold to the Bakers, they entered a water use agreement ensuring the Baileys had access. However, the Bakers later said they would not transfer water rights to any buyers of the Baileys' land. The agreement unambiguously stated only the Baileys would benefit, so extrinsic evidence of implied intentions was inadmissible. The court found no express term was breached and thus no breach of good faith.

    Original Description:

    Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Baileys lived in a mobile home and drew water from the same pipeline as the previous owner's home. When the previous owner sold to the Bakers, they entered a water use agreement ensuring the Baileys had access. However, the Bakers later said they would not transfer water rights to any buyers of the Baileys' land. The agreement unambiguously stated only the Baileys would benefit, so extrinsic evidence of implied intentions was inadmissible. The court found no express term was breached and thus no breach of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    167 views3 pages

    Baker v. Bailey

    Uploaded by

    Sawyer Like
    The Baileys lived in a mobile home and drew water from the same pipeline as the previous owner's home. When the previous owner sold to the Bakers, they entered a water use agreement ensuring the Baileys had access. However, the Bakers later said they would not transfer water rights to any buyers of the Baileys' land. The agreement unambiguously stated only the Baileys would benefit, so extrinsic evidence of implied intentions was inadmissible. The court found no express term was breached and thus no breach of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    XXX

    BAKER V. BAILEY
    Montana Supreme Court, 1989.
    782 P.2d 1286 (1989)

    Procedural History
    The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Minnesota County found the Bakers
    breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Bakers appealed.

    Key Facts
    Beginning June 1976, Arthur and Emma Bailey (defendants) lived in a mobile home on their
    daughter’s property and drew water from the same pipeline that serviced their daughter’s home.
    In 1982, the Baileys’ daughter sold her residence to Grant and Norma Baker (plaintiffs), but
    reserved one acre of land surrounding the mobile home for the Baileys. The Bakers and the
    Baileys entered into a Water Well Use Agreement (Agreement) to ensure the Baileys had access
    to water. The Agreement was made solely for the Baileys’ benefit and was to terminate once the
    Baileys ceased to occupy the land. This was done because the Bakers wanted some control over
    future occupants of the Baileys’ land. The Agreement did not reflect this reasoning.

    However, the Baileys understood that the Bakers would supply water to successive owners if the
    Bakers deemed them acceptable. The Agreement also gave the Bakers the right of first refusal. In
    1984 the Baileys sought to sell their property. The Bakers informed the Baileys that they would
    not be transferring water rights to any subsequent owners. The Baileys were therefore forced to
    sell their property for $8,000.00, although the land with water would have been worth about
    $47,500.00. The Bakers then exercised their right of first refusal and purchased the property from
    the Baileys for $8,000.00.

    The Bakers subsequently brought suit against the Baileys for unpaid expenses. The Baileys
    countersued for breach of the Agreement.

    Rule
    - Parole Evidence Rule: States that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible where parties to a
    contract have reduced their agreement to an integrated writing and that writing is
    unambiguous
    - Note: The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not violated unless an express
    term of the Agreement has been breached.

    Legal Issue
    - Is extrinsic evidence admissible where the language of a written and integrated contract is
    unambiguous?

    Application
    - Here, the Agreement purports to fully set forth the understanding of the parties.
    XXX

    • Even if the Baileys correctly believed the Bakers intended to share their well water with
    subsequent purchasers they deemed acceptable, nothing in the contract requires the Bakers
    to provide water to acceptable subsequent purchasers.
    • The Agreement instead clearly states that only the Baileys were to benefit from the
    Agreement. Thus, no express provision of the Agreement was breached.
    - The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not violated unless an express
    term of the Agreement has been breached.
    • Since there is no breach of the Agreement, the implied covenant was not violated.

    Conclusion
    - Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible where parties to a contract have reduced their agreement to
    an integrated writing and that writing is unambiguous.
    XXX

    Case Name

    Notes/Questions

    You might also like