Cablevision Of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condominium Ass'n

Facts

P is a corporation engaged in providing cable television and FM radio to its subscribers in areas where the television signals are weak or nonexistent. P constructed several antennas on a mountain peak near Breckenridge, by which it receives six television stations as well as FM radio. The signals are fed into a 'pre-amp,' which magnifies their strength to allow for color transmission. The signals are then transmitted to a 'head-end' building, located near the receiving antennas, where they are passed through a channel processor and mixer for the purpose of improving the clarity of the picture produced by the transmission. From this building, the signals are sent by coaxial cable to the 'hub' facility in Breckenridge, and thence through distribution lines to the individual subscribers. Additional amplification of the signals is necessary as they are transmitted through the system, so amplifiers are installed along the distribution lines. P's capital investment in the transmission system is approximately $450,000. P entered into an oral agreement for the provision of subscription cable services with Judy Keller, who was acting on behalf of the owners of the condominium units comprising the D development in Breckenridge. P installed the equipment necessary to provide its service to each of the units. This was accomplished by running a connecting line from the distribution system to an amplifier located inside D. The signals were then transmitted from this amplifier to individual wall plates serving each of the units. From January 1, 1972, through March 1974, D paid for the service to these 33 units at a specified rate per unit. In May 1974, P ceased billing for service to 33 units and began billing for service to only three units. The P amplifier inside D was removed, and a party named White then substituted his own amplifier and connected it to the P line; and that, following May 1, television and FM radio service was still provided to all 33 units of D despite the payment to P for service to only three of those units. This state of affairs continued from May 1, 1974, to approximately December 1, 1976. Tannhauser II which comprised of 25 condominium units, was constructed near D. P was never requested to supply service to Tannhauser II. The new building was wired internally for cable television and FM radio, and in November 1974 White supervised and assisted in the installation of a cable between D and Tannhauser II enabling extension of the Cablevision service to each of the 25 units in Tannhauser II. Tannhauser II began receiving the P transmission approximately November 30, 1974. Cablevision subsequently discovered the unauthorized use of its transmission by D and II and terminated all service to the condominiums about December 1, 1976. P sued Ds for breach of contract, concealment, conversion, various claims of unjust enrichment, and a request for injunctive relief. Under a pretrial stipulation of facts, the parties submitted the following issue to the court: Have the Defendants, or any of them, breached any contract with Plaintiff, written or oral, in fact, or implied, for which Plaintiff is entitled for damages, actual or punitive? The court held Ds liable for conversion of P's service. The court entered judgment for actual damages of $11,597.50 plus statutory interest and court costs, and denied the prayer for punitive damages. Ds appealed. The court of appeals reversed; there could be no conversion as the only issue before the trial court was whether any D breached any contract with P. Because the stipulation did not establish the essential elements of a contract, P had not proved its breach of contract claim. Therefore, it directed the trial court to enter judgment for Ds. P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.