566 P.2d 505 (Or. 1977)
The contractor needed helicopter services for a construction job. The contractor negotiated with an agent of the helicopter services company. After the helicopter service company failed to perform and the contractor had to obtain helicopter services elsewhere, a dispute arose as to whether the parties had an oral agreement. The contractor filed an action against the owners of the helicopter services company for breaching the alleged oral agreement. A jury awarded the contractor damages. The owners appealed.
- The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in permitting the vice-president of the contractor to testify in his own sense of the state of negotiations.
- Although the court adopted the objective test for determining whether a contract was formed, the court concluded that the jury was not misled by the testimony.
- The court reasoned that the jury was not misled into treating the testimony, in its context, as something more than evidence bearing on the behavior and the perceptions of the parties to the negotiations where the trial court instructed the jury that its conclusion depended upon the objective test of contract interpretation.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment awarded the contractor damages in its breach of contract against the owners of the helicopter services company.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.