RICHARDSON, P. J.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in plaintiffs favor on both of its claims in this action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. We affirm.
Plaintiff is in the printing business and had a line of credit with U.S. National Bank (defendant), secured by plaintiffs accounts receivable. A receivable that exceeded ten percent of plaintiffs total receivables could not be included in plaintiffs “borrowing base,” unless defendant agreed otherwise. In early 1984, plaintiff renewed its line of credit. At that time, it was contemplating an extensive printing project for Beyond Words Publishing Company, of which Richard Cohn, another customer of defendant, was a principal. Plaintiff contends that defendant agreed, as part of and during discussions concerning the parties’ credit arrangement, to review and provide plaintiff with information about Cohn’s “creditworthiness” and that defendant failed to do so. Plaintiff maintains that defendant’s affirmative representation and, more saliently, its failure to advise plaintiff otherwise caused plaintiff to conclude that Cohn’s financial condition was satisfactory and to undertake the project. Plaintiff did so, and Beyond Words Publishing Company fell in arrears on its payments.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent and breached its contract by not properly performing the credit check. The jury returned special interrogatories in plaintiffs favor on the two claims and, after plaintiffs comparative fault on the negligence claim was factored in, awarded identical and overlapping damages on both. A proper verdict on either claim would independently support the judgment. It is therefore necessary for us to address only the assignments that relate to the contract claim.
Defendant assigns error to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict on the contract claim. Defendant does not argue that plaintiff failed to prove the breach of
a
contract. Defendant’s theory is that the “credit agreement” alleged in the complaint refers to defendant’s letter to plaintiffs president offering the line of credit and that that letter creates no obligation to plaintiff of the kind alleged. Therefore, defendant concludes, laintiff did not prove a breach of
the
contract that it pleaded. *
Plaintiff responds by this characterization of defendant’s argument:
“First, the Bank attempts to circumscribe narrowly the ‘contract’ in issue. Next, the Bank alleges there is
no
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Bank breached the so-circumscribed ‘contract.’ ” (Emphasis plaintiffs.)
We agree with plaintiff that the allegations were sufficient to allow proof of a contract other than the letter to which defendant attempts to confine them, and plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to support the findings that there was a contract and that it was breached.
Defendant argues in its next two assignments that the court erred by denying its motions for directed verdict, made on the grounds that its conduct did not cause plaintiffs damages and that the damages were not foreseeable to the parties at the time of contracting. The predicate for the arguments are the facts, as understood by defendant, that the printing and other costs for the project greatly exceeded the parties’ original expectations, that Beyond Words Publishing Company
has
paid plaintiff an amount that falls within the limits of the original estimate and that the evidence at trial showed that, at the time of the contract and its breach, Cohn and his affiliates could have made payments within those limits. Therefore, defendant reasons, the same losses would have happened, whether it had performed its contract or not.
Specifically, defendant contends that the damages were not foreseeable, because it could not have anticipated that the project expenses would go above the amounts that any review of Cohn’s finances would have shown that he could pay. The Supreme Court explained in
Cont. Plants v. Measured Mkt.,
274 Or 621, 547 P2d 1368 (1976):
“The applicable rule in determining whether pecuniary harm
caused in fact by the breach is compensable is set forth in the English case of
Hadley v. Baxendale,
9 Exch 341 (1854) in the following words:
“ ‘Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally; i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.’
“The rule is basically one of foreseeability and is stated in 5 Corbin on Contracts 79, § 1010 (1964) as follows:
“ ‘* * * All that is necessary, in order to charge the defendant with a particular loss, is that it is one that ordinarily follows the breach of such a contract in the usual course of events, or that reasonable men in the position of the parties would have foreseen as a probable result of breach. It is not necessary that the parties should have given the matter a moment’s thought or should have expressed themselves on the subject * * *.’ ” 274 Or at 625-26.
The court also noted that, at least under the facts in
Cont. Plants:
“The question whether or not defendant would, in fact, foresee, or would have had reason to foresee, the injury that plaintiff has suffered is a question of fact.” 274 Or at 627.
It approaches the self-evident that a trier of fact can find that the breach of a contract to check a debtor’s credit can have the foreseeable result of the creditor not getting paid. It is equally foreseeable that expenses and debts might exceed original expectations. It is also within the realm of the foreseeable that a creditor’s understandings about a debtor’s financial situation might affect the expenses that the creditor would incur. Defendant’s view appears to be that the facts
known
at the time of contracting are the only facts that can be foreseen. That is incorrect. The question of foreseeability was properly given to the jury, and the evidence and inferences support its finding.
Defendant also argues that, if it had performed and
had discovered the correct facts about Cohn’s financial situation, plaintiff would
in fact
have considered him a safe risk to pay the expenses that were anticipated at the time and would have undertaken the project.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RICHARDSON, P. J.
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in plaintiffs favor on both of its claims in this action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. We affirm.
Plaintiff is in the printing business and had a line of credit with U.S. National Bank (defendant), secured by plaintiffs accounts receivable. A receivable that exceeded ten percent of plaintiffs total receivables could not be included in plaintiffs “borrowing base,” unless defendant agreed otherwise. In early 1984, plaintiff renewed its line of credit. At that time, it was contemplating an extensive printing project for Beyond Words Publishing Company, of which Richard Cohn, another customer of defendant, was a principal. Plaintiff contends that defendant agreed, as part of and during discussions concerning the parties’ credit arrangement, to review and provide plaintiff with information about Cohn’s “creditworthiness” and that defendant failed to do so. Plaintiff maintains that defendant’s affirmative representation and, more saliently, its failure to advise plaintiff otherwise caused plaintiff to conclude that Cohn’s financial condition was satisfactory and to undertake the project. Plaintiff did so, and Beyond Words Publishing Company fell in arrears on its payments.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent and breached its contract by not properly performing the credit check. The jury returned special interrogatories in plaintiffs favor on the two claims and, after plaintiffs comparative fault on the negligence claim was factored in, awarded identical and overlapping damages on both. A proper verdict on either claim would independently support the judgment. It is therefore necessary for us to address only the assignments that relate to the contract claim.
Defendant assigns error to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict on the contract claim. Defendant does not argue that plaintiff failed to prove the breach of
a
contract. Defendant’s theory is that the “credit agreement” alleged in the complaint refers to defendant’s letter to plaintiffs president offering the line of credit and that that letter creates no obligation to plaintiff of the kind alleged. Therefore, defendant concludes, laintiff did not prove a breach of
the
contract that it pleaded. *
Plaintiff responds by this characterization of defendant’s argument:
“First, the Bank attempts to circumscribe narrowly the ‘contract’ in issue. Next, the Bank alleges there is
no
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Bank breached the so-circumscribed ‘contract.’ ” (Emphasis plaintiffs.)
We agree with plaintiff that the allegations were sufficient to allow proof of a contract other than the letter to which defendant attempts to confine them, and plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to support the findings that there was a contract and that it was breached.
Defendant argues in its next two assignments that the court erred by denying its motions for directed verdict, made on the grounds that its conduct did not cause plaintiffs damages and that the damages were not foreseeable to the parties at the time of contracting. The predicate for the arguments are the facts, as understood by defendant, that the printing and other costs for the project greatly exceeded the parties’ original expectations, that Beyond Words Publishing Company
has
paid plaintiff an amount that falls within the limits of the original estimate and that the evidence at trial showed that, at the time of the contract and its breach, Cohn and his affiliates could have made payments within those limits. Therefore, defendant reasons, the same losses would have happened, whether it had performed its contract or not.
Specifically, defendant contends that the damages were not foreseeable, because it could not have anticipated that the project expenses would go above the amounts that any review of Cohn’s finances would have shown that he could pay. The Supreme Court explained in
Cont. Plants v. Measured Mkt.,
274 Or 621, 547 P2d 1368 (1976):
“The applicable rule in determining whether pecuniary harm
caused in fact by the breach is compensable is set forth in the English case of
Hadley v. Baxendale,
9 Exch 341 (1854) in the following words:
“ ‘Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally; i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.’
“The rule is basically one of foreseeability and is stated in 5 Corbin on Contracts 79, § 1010 (1964) as follows:
“ ‘* * * All that is necessary, in order to charge the defendant with a particular loss, is that it is one that ordinarily follows the breach of such a contract in the usual course of events, or that reasonable men in the position of the parties would have foreseen as a probable result of breach. It is not necessary that the parties should have given the matter a moment’s thought or should have expressed themselves on the subject * * *.’ ” 274 Or at 625-26.
The court also noted that, at least under the facts in
Cont. Plants:
“The question whether or not defendant would, in fact, foresee, or would have had reason to foresee, the injury that plaintiff has suffered is a question of fact.” 274 Or at 627.
It approaches the self-evident that a trier of fact can find that the breach of a contract to check a debtor’s credit can have the foreseeable result of the creditor not getting paid. It is equally foreseeable that expenses and debts might exceed original expectations. It is also within the realm of the foreseeable that a creditor’s understandings about a debtor’s financial situation might affect the expenses that the creditor would incur. Defendant’s view appears to be that the facts
known
at the time of contracting are the only facts that can be foreseen. That is incorrect. The question of foreseeability was properly given to the jury, and the evidence and inferences support its finding.
Defendant also argues that, if it had performed and
had discovered the correct facts about Cohn’s financial situation, plaintiff would
in fact
have considered him a safe risk to pay the expenses that were anticipated at the time and would have undertaken the project. Hence, defendant argues, its failure to perform was not the cause of the damages. Defendant bases the argument on the testimony of plaintiffs president, which can be characterized fairly as stating the fact that defendant espouses. However, there was contrary evidence to support the verdict.
Defendant’s final assignment is that the court erred by submitting to the jury as an item of awardable damages the “late charges” and interest payable from Cohn to plaintiff under the promissory note that the former executed in connection with the printing project transactions. Defendant contends that those amounts constitute prejudgment interest and are not “readily ascertainable.”
But see Forest Ind. Ins. Exchange v. U. S. Fidelity,
80 Or App 724, 723 P2d 381 (1986). Defendant is not correct, because the amounts are not “prejudgment interest.” That term has been used in the cases to refer to interest, included in a judgment, that is calculated on the damages that the judgment awards and from the date that the damages accrued rather than from the date of judgment.
See, e.g., Banister Continental Corp. v. NW Pipeline Corp.,
76 Or App 282, 292-93, 709 P2d 1103 (1985),
vacated
301 Or 763, 724 P2d 822 (1986), and cases there cited. The interest that concerns defendant, conversely, is part of Cohn’s debt to plaintiff that has not been paid because of defendant’s breach; in other words, it is part of plaintiffs actual damages, rather than interest on those damages.
Affirmed.