Preliminary negotiations between the parties centered entirely upon the rental of forms. In a face to face, meeting D claims that there would be a purchase. D contends that the contract of sale was agreed to orally at that time, and was confirmed by a document which D sent to P. That document, was backdated to September 8, was written between September 13 and 17 and was received by P on September 21. P's salesman's version of events was accepted by the trial court. This was supported by testimony of the pilot who had flown D to Seattle and accompanied him on the tour. The trial judge agreed that the contract was arrived at during a telephone conversation on September 13 between D and P, at which time a rental agreement as to quantity and price was reached. Several days after D's purchase order was dispatched, a confirmation was sent by P. Three bills of lading and three invoices from P followed, each specifically referring to the 'rental' of the forms. No one at D objected to these six documents. At trial, D testified that they had never seen or checked the invoices or bills of lading. The trial court judge did not believe D. The court accepted P's evidence of a custom within the construction trade by which builders would order equipment for rental on purchase forms. The court found that D had been unjustly enriched by its second use of the forms. It found the fair rental value for the second job to have been $29,250 and, after deducting certain expenditures by D, awarded $26,750 to P. It denied D's counterclaim and declined to award attorney's fees to P. D appealed and P disputed the denial of attorney fees.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.