DBA Enterprises, Inc. v. Findlay
Colorado Court of Appeals
28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1297 (1996)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In March 1992, Lauretta and James Findlay (defendants) sold their lawn-fertilization business, Lawn Doctor, Inc., to DBA Enterprises, Inc. (DBA) (plaintiff) for $72,500. Part of the purchase was paid by a promissory note for $53,750. The transaction was governed by a bill of sale that included a non-compete covenant prohibiting the Findlays from operating their lawn-maintenance business, Acres Green Maintenance (Acres Green), within a specified area until 1998. The promissory note provided that the Findlays’ obligation to pay on the note was conditioned upon the fulfillment of bill of sale’s terms, including the non-compete covenant. After the completion of the sale, the Findlays operated Acres Green in a way that potentially violated the bill of sale’s non-compete covenant. DBA responded by terminating payments on the promissory note. Thereafter, DBA brought suit against the Findlays for breach of contract. The Findlays counterclaimed, seeking enforcement of the promissory note. At trial, the Findlays produced the original note, along with evidence establishing that DBA defaulted on payments and that the amount still due on the note totaled $46,300. The trial court found the Findlays liable to DBA for breach of contract and dismissed the Findlays’ counterclaim, determining that the Findlays had failed to establish a prima facie case. The Findlays appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.