Whewell v. Dobson (1975)

Pa. 1972); ___ ____ _______ _______ Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 684 P.2d 1127 (N.M. 1984); Whewell v. Dobson, _________ ________ _______ ______ 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975). 4As the evidentiary foundation for determining the formation of the parties' contract was either undisputed or consisted of writings, Lambert's present challenge raises issues of law for the court.

Pa. 1972); Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 684 P.2d 1127 (N.M. 1984); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975). 4As the evidentiary foundation for determining the formation of the parties' contract was either undisputed or consisted of writings, Lambert's present challenge raises issues of law for the court.

See U.C.C. § 2-105, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 106 § 2-105(1); Wash.Rev.Code 62A.2-105; see also Traynor v. Walters, 342 F.Supp. 455, 459 (M.D.Pa.1972); Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 101 N.M. 462 , 684 P.2d 1127 (1984); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975). 4 .

Iowa Code § 554.2610 , Uniform Commercial Code Comment; see also Pillsbury, 250 N.W.2d at 40 (quoting portions of the same official comment and citing decisions relying upon it); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 118 (Iowa 1975) (also quoting official comments from paragraphs 1 and 2 for a definition of repudiation and observing that “[t]he Uniform Commercial Code comments should be given due consideration as they express the intention of the drafters”).

See Nora Springs Cooperative Company v. Brandau, supra; Sand Seed Service, Inc. v. Bainbridge, 246 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975).

We recently considered a similar matter in Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975) where we quoted with approval the following passage from Nizzi v. Laverty Sprayers, Inc., 259 Iowa 112, 122 , 143 N.W.2d 312, 317-318 (1966): “Where a plaintiff seeks damages for a wrongful act of defendant, plaintiff has the duty to minimize his damages, but the duty of proving that the damages could be minimized is on defendant * * [citing authority].

See, e.g., Greenwood v. Mitchell, 621 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Iowa 2001) (explaining that mitigation of damages involves something that the plaintiff could reasonably do, under the circumstances, to reduce his or her loss from the defendant’s conduct); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975) (mitigation of damages requires the plaintiff to act with “reasonable diligence” to reduce injury caused by the defendant’s conduct); Bushman v. Cuckler Bldg.

The duty of a plaintiff has been called one of “reasonable diligence.” See Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975), quoting 3 Williston on Sales, § 24-5 at 405 (4th ed.).

Cf. Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975) (where a plaintiff seeks damages for a wrongful act of defendant, plaintiff has the *327 duty to make a reasonably diligent attempt to minimize his damages.).

For cases utilizing the comments in a similar manner, see, e.g., First State Bank at Gallup v. Clark, 91 N.M. 117 , 570 P.2d 1144, 1146 (1977); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 118 (Iowa 1975); Warren’s Kiddie Shoppe, Inc. v. Casual Slacks, Inc., 120 Ga. App. 578 , 171 S.E.2d 643, 645 (1969).

Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975); Nizzi v. Laverty Sprayers, Inc., 259 Iowa 112, 122 , 143 N.W.2d 312, 317-18 (1966).

Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975).

See Flexsteel Ind., Inc. v. Morbern Ind. Ltd., 239 N.W.2d 593, 598 (Iowa 1976); In re Estate of Northup, 230 N.W.2d 918, 921 (Iowa 1975); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975). *812 In the case before us we are in accord with district court’s factual findings relating to Martha’s role in the corporation.

Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975).

Bank v. Campbell, 258 Iowa 1238, 1247 , 141 N.W.2d 917, 922 ; Holi-Rest, Inc. v. Treloar, 217 N.W.2d 517, 523 (Iowa 1974); Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Iowa 1975); and citations in those opinions.

Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975).

These principles were set out as follows in Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975): “On appeal from a law action tried to the court, as here, review in this court is only on errors assigned and the matter is not triable de novo.

However, we are not bound by findings of fact resulting from application of erroneous rules of law, nor are we bound by trial court determinations of law. * * * [citing authority].” In other words, “* * * the rule does not preclude inquiry into the question whether, conceding the truth of a finding of fact, a conclusion of law drawn therefrom is correct, * * *.” Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 117 (Iowa 1975).

See Whewell v. Dobson, supra, 227 N.W.2d at 115 .