A person hired to raise 20 puppies for a Wheeling greyhound owner is not entitled to pay damages after only delivering six puppies, according to a Feb. 14 state Supreme Court memorandum opinion.
Stemming from a 2007 contract dispute, Dean Miner, a Wheeling greyhound owner, filed the suit against Ricardo Pacheco in Ohio County Circuit Court.
Pacheco agreed to raise 20 greyhound puppies for Miner for $100 per month, per dog. Miner agreed to fund the construction of dog runs on Pacheco's farm and also agreed to pay all vet costs.
Of the $100 per month per dog payment, $40 per month per dog would be applied to the amount of money Pacheco owed Miner to construct the dog runs, according to the memorandum opinion.
If Pacheco was unable to raise 20 puppies, then Miner's $9,100 payment for the construction of the dog runs would become a loan payable within 90 days.
According to the memorandum opinion, complications came up and Pacheco was only able to raise six of the 20 puppies.
Miner then filed a suit against Pacheco claiming a breach of contract, seeking either the remaining 14 puppies or a monetary equivalent.
The circuit judge sided with Pacheco, however, and granted his motion for summary judgment. Miner appealed the case, arguing the circuit court erred in finding the contract's language "unambiguous."
Miner also argued the circuit court made an error in deciding the damages were speculative in nature and therefore not recoverable.
According to the memorandum opinion, Miner argued the value of greyhound puppies is attainable through the National Greyhound Association.
"A review of the record, however, shows that the contract in question was unambiguous, and further that the circuit court simply found that petitioner's damages were established as a matter of law," the memorandum opinion stated.
Miner argued the drafted contract was "ripe with language that constitutes ambiguities" but justices disagreed.
"The agreement was unambiguous in that it provided for the raising of the pups by respondent from broods provided by petitioner," justices wrote.
Justices said the reason the contract was unambiguous is because it "clearly" stated what would happen if Pacheco was unable in raising the 20 puppies.
"Because the contract plainly stated how petitioner was to be repaid in the event that less than the full 20 pups were delivered, the circuit court was correct in its findings that the petitioner's damages were established as a matter of law," the memorandum opinion stated.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2012 WorldNow and WVSTATE. All Rights Reserved.