Huston v. Buehner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Huston v. Buehner

720 P.2d 1338, 80 Or. App. 150

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 18, 1986

Docket43-117; CA A34194

StatusPublished

This text of 720 P.2d 1338 (Huston v. Buehner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huston v. Buehner, 720 P.2d 1338, 80 Or. App. 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this action for breach of contract, defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict.¹ We affirm on the appeal. Plaintiff cross-appeals and seeks prejudgment interest on the jury’s award of $11,000 for the amount due on the “balance of the employment contract.” Plaintiff alleged in his amended complaint a foundation for prejudgment interest from January 15, 1979. The $11,000 which plaintiff sought to recover from defendant was ascertained or readily ascertainable by simple computation. See Krieg v. Union Pacific Land Res. Corp., 269 Or 221, 234, 525 P2d 48 (1974). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the legal rate² commencing January 15, 1979, for each installment as it fell due under the contract. See, e.g., Kotan v. School Dist. No. 110C, 13 Or App 139, 149, 509 P2d 452 (1973).

Affirmed on the appeal; reversed on the cross-appeal; and remanded with instructions to enter a new judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM

In this action for breach of contract, defendant appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict.¹ We affirm on the appeal. Plaintiff cross-appeals and seeks prejudgment interest on the jury’s award of $11,000 for the amount due on the “balance of the employment contract.” Plaintiff alleged in his amended complaint a foundation for prejudgment interest from January 15, 1979. The $11,000 which plaintiff sought to recover from defendant was ascertained or readily ascertainable by simple computation. See Krieg v. Union Pacific Land Res. Corp., 269 Or 221, 234, 525 P2d 48 (1974). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the legal rate² commencing January 15, 1979, for each installment as it fell due under the contract. See, e.g., Kotan v. School Dist. No. 110C, 13 Or App 139, 149, 509 P2d 452 (1973).

Affirmed on the appeal; reversed on the cross-appeal; and remanded with instructions to enter a new judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 P.2d 1338, 80 Or. App. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huston-v-buehner-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack