GENERAL45769 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A "Contract" is an agreement which creates an obligation; its essential elements are competent parties, subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of agreement and mutuality of obligation. Peterson v. Trailways. Inc., 555 F.Supp. 827 (D.C. Colo. 1983) and Denver Truck Exchange v. Perryman, 307 P.2d 805, 134 Colo. 586 (1957). Generally, if a party enters into a contract or any other legal transaction with sufficient mental capacity to understand it, and not under the influence of fraud, coercion or imposition, such party will not be relieved of consequences of his act on the sole ground that the bargain is improvident as to him. Sedalia Land Co. v. Robinson Brick Tile Co, 475 P.2d 351, 28 Colo.App. 550 (1970) and Ace Flying Service. Inc. v. Colo. Dept. of Agriculture, 348 P.2d 962, 141 Colo. 467 (1960). The mere fact that a contract is unprofitable as to one of the parties or that it was improvidently entered into, is not, in and of itself, sufficient basis for avoiding contractual obligations. Great Am. Inc. Co. of New York v. City of Boulder,. 4+76 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1970). A contract is not void for uncertainty if it is sufficiently definite so that it can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty what the parties intended to agree to, even though it does not enter into all the details with respect to its subject- matter. Where the owners of a mine by pumping the water from their own mine drained the water from another mine, and the owner of the other mine promised to pay its proportion of the expense of the pumping, such promise is not void for uncertainty because it failed to state just how much or what aliquot part of the expense should be paid by each. Fisk Min & Mill. Co. v. Reed. 77 P. 240, 32 Colo. 506. (1903). Whether terms of contract are sufficiently definite in given circumstance depends, to a large extent, on purpose of contract, and relations between the parties involved. Hayes v. North Table Mountain Coro., 608 P.2d 830, 43 Colo.App. 467 (1979). Terms of a contract need only be expressed with reasonable definiteness and what is reasonable in any case must depend upon the subject matter of the agreement, the purpose for which it was entered into, the situation and relations of the parties, and the circumstances under which it was made. Marcor Housing Systems, Inc. v. First American Title Co., 584 P.2d 86, 41 Colo.App. 90, (1978) affirmed in part, reversed in part O'Hara Group Denver. Ltd. v. Marcor Housing Systems. Inc., 595 P.2d 679, 197 Colo. 530. (1979). In construing a contract a Court should consider the subject matter, the sense in which the parties naturally understood the contract at the time it was made, and purposes and objects to be 5