Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak

Edward and Jane Dow Petyak (Petyak) (defendants) were engaged in importing and reselling luxury cars. In the spring of 1985, Petyak met with Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. (MPI) (plaintiff) and orally agreed to locate and import from Europe a new Jaguar automobile and deliver it to MPI in the United States after completion of modifications. On June 4, 1985, MPI paid Petyak $2,500 as a down payment. The import suffered a six-month delay, and Petyak indicated to MPI that it could be an additional three to four months before the car would arrive, if at all. Petyak advised MPI that Jaguars for similar prices were seen in newspaper ads in Dallas, Texas. Petyak visited Gerimco, a Dallas dealership, and found a Jaguar to MPI’s specifications. Petyak telephoned MPI from the dealership and negotiated the price and modifications with an agreed purchase price of $29,800, including modifications. Petyak and MPI agreed that Gerimco would ship the Jaguar to MPI in Phoenix, Arizona. Petyak wrote a personal check for the purchase price. MPI delivered a check to Petyak for the purchase price less the initial down payment. The Jaguar was never delivered to MPI. Petyak learned that Gerimco absconded with the money and the Jaguar was repossessed by the Texas bank that held the lien. MPI demanded a refund of the purchase price, and Petyak refused. MPI filed suit under two theories, alleging breach of a sales contract and breach of an agency agreement. The jury was instructed on both theories. During the settling of jury instructions, Petyak’s counsel objected to the trial court’s refusal to include the instruction that the jury first had to determine whether Petyak as agent failed to act in good faith, because the jury instructions provided to the jury resulted in strict liability for any breach. Following a jury verdict, judgment was netted in the amount of $29,800 in favor of MPI. Petyak appealed, arguing that the trial court’s jury instruction was incorrect and constituted reversible error.