Ashworth v. Glover

Utah Supreme Court

Ashworth v. Glover

433 P.2d 315, 20 Utah 2d 85, 156 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 219, 1967 Utah LEXIS 530

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1967

Docket10679

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 433 P.2d 315 (Ashworth v. Glover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashworth v. Glover, 433 P.2d 315, 20 Utah 2d 85, 156 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 219, 1967 Utah LEXIS 530 (Utah 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

[87]*87HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no cause judgment, in an action where the plaintiff sued defendant in tort, not quasi-contract, for conversion of plans he had drawn. Reversed, with costs to- plaintiff A.

In 1960 A designed a drive-in restaurant for one Allen, who paid the former for his services. Allen thereafter expanded his business and built another drive-in, essentially identical in structure and design, save for plot and minor other changes,— within a radius of about 30 miles on a through highway. Allen continued to use A’s plans and his supervision of construction. On the occasion of the first unit’s construction, A delivered one set of plans to Allen, and about 14 sets to contractors and subcontractors interested in bidding on certain phases of the construction.

It is interesting to note that the specifications so delivered were titled “Information for Bidders” and that the very first paragraph thereof was entitled “General Conditions,” and stated that “The latest edition of the ‘General Conditions of the Contract for the Construction of Buildings,’ as approved by the American Institute of Architects is a part of these specifications. Copies of the General Conditions may be viewed at the office of the Architect.” It is even more significant that under Article 7 of the referred-to A. I. A. “General Conditions,” under the Title “Ownership of Drawings,” it was stated that “All drawings, specifications and. copies thereof furnished by the Architect are his property. They are not to be used on other work, and with the exception of the signed Contract set, are to be returned to him on request, at the completion of the work.” A deposit of $25 was required by A for each set thus furnished. In addition he filed a set with the city, which he was required to do before a permit for construction could issue.

One Richardson, manager of Allen’s original drive-in and for whom he had been employed for about three or four years, without any permission from and unbeknown to his employer, Allen permitted the defendant, G, to copy the plans. He admitted he was contemplating a business relationship with G, who built his drive-in only 17 miles away on the same through highway and on the same side of the highway. When G’s drive-in was completed, Richardson went to work for G as manager. G copied the plans drawn by A, whose name was clearly stamped thereon, without seeking any permission to do so either from A or Allen, and G in his' defense now claims Allen owned them by- virtue of some kind of sale to Allen. This seems to be no reason G could use the plans without permissions from A or Allen, neither of which was forthcoming.

No one in this case says the plans did not call for the construction of a unique and unusually designed building. G simply [88]*88said the building did not simulate Allen’s in design, and then said that anyway A had lost his common law property right in the plans, having abandoned it by selling them to Allen and selling them to 25 other contractors who may have forfeited $25, and by filing them with the city, — thus publishing them for use by anyone else who wanted to use them. The court found the facts to be consonant with the last two contentions. It said in Finding 4 and 5 as follows :

4. That in supervising the construetion of the drive-in, plaintiffs caused to have published and distributed to various building contractors, approximately 25 copies of a complete set of the plans and specifications which could later be purchased from plaintiffs by forfeiting a $25.00 deposit; that plaintiffs did not restrict the use to be made of these plans.

5. A set was filed with the planning and zoning commission at American Fork, Utah, for the purpose of securing a building permit.

As to the question of nonsimulation, we subjoin a picture of Allen’s unit followed by a picture of G’s unit and let the reader judge 'ais to such similarity: Furthermore, it is obvious from the answers of G on direct and cross-examination, that he used plans and specifications prepared by A for Allen,' — his contention to the contrary not[89]*89withstanding, — even as to interior design and construction not discernible by patrons.

[88]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI