Opinion
Feb. 16, 1971.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 427
Martin & Riggs, E. Gregory Martin, Marshall T. Riggs, Don P. Stimmel, Boulder, George Vranesh, Boulder, for plaintiff in error.
Hellerstein & Hellerstein, S. A. Hellerstein, F. J. Manning, Denver, for defendant in error.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
This was an action for breach of contract and for breach of an express or implied warranty of fitness for use. The plaintiff Glass, owner of Rocky Mountain Machine Tool Co., brought suit against Weaver Electric (Weaver) over problems arising from two electric motors that Glass had purchased from Weaver. In his complaint Glass alleged that the motors did not conform to the specifications in the contract and asked damages in the amount of the purchase price and also consequential damages he alleged he had incurred. The trial court found that Glass had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a breach of the contract, and that there was no breach of warranty and that, even if there had been a breach, damages were limited by the terms of the contract to the purchase price of the motors. Glass asserts that all of the above rulings were erroneous. We affirm.
The primary issue raised by Glass is:
Did the evidence support the findings and conclusions of the trial court that plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a breach of contract or breach of warranty?
The law is well settled and often reiterated that the jury or the court acting as a jury is the finder of fact and that if there is any evidence to support the findings they will be upheld on review.
'If reasonable men could differ in the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence * * * then we cannot interfere with the findings and conclusions of the trial court.'
Hoeprich v. Cummiskey, 158 Colo. 365, 407 P.2d 28.
In the present case the trial court set forth extensive findings of fact from the bench immediately after the final arguments of counsel, and, on those findings concluded that there was no breach of contract or of implied warranty.
Thereafter plaintiff filed a Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment or for a new trial. A hearing was had no that motion and the minute order entered following that hearing states,
'The Court makes statements for the record, amending, modifying and clarifying its original Findings made from the bench, stating that from all of the conflicting evidence in the case, the Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance that Defendant breached the Contract entered upon between the parties; * * *.'
The record does not contain the 'statements for the record' referred to in the above minute order. However the record does disclose substantial conflicts in the evidence. The general finding on the issues in favor of the defendant, with competent evidence in the record in support thereof, must be construed to extend to and include every fact necessary to support the judgment given thereon. Hyman and Company v. Velsicol Corp., 123 Colo. 563, 233 P.2d 977.
The record discloses that there was competent evidence to support the judgment of the trial court that plaintiff failed to prove a breach of contract or of warranty. Therefore we will not disturb the judgment. Matkin v. Turner, 151 Colo. 196, 376 P.2d 988.
The issue as to whether Glass was entitled to consequential damages would be material only if we had reversed the trial court, and therefore need not be determined in view of our affirmance.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.