This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a construction company, performed remodeling work on a restaurant owned by the Defendant under disputed contractual terms. The Plaintiff claimed the work was governed by a written contract providing for payment on a cost-plus-ten-percent basis, while the Defendant alleged the contract was forged and that the work was performed under an oral agreement for cost-plus-three-percent. Disputes arose over billing errors, and the Defendant made no payments beyond an initial $60,000. The Defendant also counterclaimed under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging deceptive practices, including the forged contract and misleading invoices (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The jury awarded $156,840.59 to the Defendant, including damages for harm to reputation and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remittitur were denied (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the damage to reputation claim was improperly submitted to the jury as it was not raised in the pleadings, that there was no substantial evidence of violations under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, and that the Defendant failed to establish actual damages, limiting recovery to $300 (para 8).
- Defendant-Appellee: Claimed the written contract was forged, the invoices were deceptive, and the Plaintiff's actions violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Defendant also sought damages for harm to reputation stemming from a phone call between the Plaintiff and the Defendant's banker (paras 1, 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Was the damage to reputation claim properly submitted to the jury despite not being raised in the pleadings?
- Did the Plaintiff's actions constitute violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act?
- Did the Defendant establish actual damages under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, and if not, what is the appropriate remedy?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to award $80,772.94 to the Plaintiff for the unpaid contract balance and $300 to the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (para 24).
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Baca and Wilson JJ. concurring):
Damage to Reputation Claim: The Court held that the issue of damage to reputation was tried with the implied consent of the Plaintiff, as evidence on the matter was admitted without objection, and the Plaintiff cross-examined the Defendant on the issue. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support a finding that the phone call between the Plaintiff and the Defendant's banker constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The phone call did not involve false or misleading statements, nor did it occur in connection with the sale of services or debt collection as required by the Act (paras 9-15).
Unfair Trade Practices Act Violations: The Court found substantial evidence of violations based on the forged contract and erroneous invoices. The jury could reasonably conclude that the contract was fabricated and that the invoices were deceptive, even if the errors were unintentional. These actions fell within the scope of the Act (paras 17-18).
Damages: The Court determined that the Defendant failed to establish any actual monetary loss resulting from the violations. Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, recovery of damages requires proof of a loss of money or property. As no such loss was demonstrated, the Defendant's recovery was limited to $300, which could be trebled for willful violations. The Court did not address whether the violations were willful, as the issue was not raised (paras 19-23).
Remedy: The Court instructed the district court to award $80,772.94 to the Plaintiff for the unpaid contract balance and $300 to the Defendant for the Unfair Trade Practices Act violations (para 24).