MELANDER T. MELANDER v. BOAZ T. SAM & DORTHY JACKSON

KOSRAE STATE COURT

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Cite as Melander v. Sam & Jackson. (Kosrae 1998)

[page 1]

MELANDER T. MELANDER

Plaintiff,

vs.

BOAZ T. SAM AND DORITHY

JACKSON,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-95

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Introduction

This matter came on as regularly scheduled for trial before me this 16th day of October, 1995 in the Kosrae State Court. Representing the plaintiff was Mr. Patrick Olter and for the defendants was Mr. Canney Palsis of the Micronesian Legal Services Corporation.

Findings of Fact

1. Sometime in 1994, plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam agreed to a sale of a car by plaintiff Melander to defendant Boaz Sam in the amount of $5,600.00.

2. In exchange for the car, defendant Boaz Sam agreed to give portion of land situated at Pukusrik Te in the Municipality of Lelu, State of Kosrae also known as Parcel No. 033-K-10.

3. Defendant Boaz Sam upon receipt of the car took plaintiff and plaintiff's wife, Elrin to Pukusrik where defendant Boaz designated the boundaries.

[page 2]

4. The boundaries ran from the wetland to the midsection and did not include the area between the midsection and the road.

5. That after defendant Boaz designated the boundaries, plaintiff and his wife expressed some concerns regarding their easy access to the property.

6. The facts also showed that after plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam discussed plaintiff's access to the property at issue, defendant Boaz Sam offered to sale the remaining portion or the area between the road and the midsection to plaintiff, provided, however that plaintiff pay some money.

7. Plaintiff has never paid any money to defendant Boaz Sam.

ISSUE

The only issue that is presented to this Court to consider is whether there was a breach of contract.

A contract is "a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty". 17A AmJur 2d Contract, § 1. It is undisputed that plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam had a contract in which defendant Boaz Sam agreed to buy and plaintiff Melander T. Melander agreed to sale to defendant Boaz Sam a car for a portion of land at Pukusrik Te, otherwise known as 033-K-10 situated in Lelu Municipality. Defendant Boaz Sam did just that. The evidence presented during the trial of this matter showed that after defendant Boaz Sam picked up the car, he took plaintiff and plaintiff's wife to the property and staked out the boundaries as he promised.

[page 3]

Breach is defined as a failure without legal excuse to perform any promised which forms a whole or a part of a contract 17A AmJur 2d, Contract. §716. Unless defendant Boaz Sam fails to perform without legal excuse, there is no breach of contract. Such is the case here. Plaintiff failed to show any breach and the court could not fine any evidence to show that defendant Boaz Sam in fact failed to perform his legal duty, thus there was not breach of contract.

Conclusion

This court has found no breach of contract and issued order as follows:

1. That defendant Dorithy Jackson be dismissed from this action with prejudice; and

2. That plaintiff's land runs from the wet land to the midsection of Parcel No. 033-K-10 as designated by defendant Boaz Sam; and

3. That the land between the road and the midsection is owned and belongs to defendant Boaz Sam and that plaintiff, his representatives, agents, and successors have no legal rights to enter and/or use such property.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1998.

___/s/__________

Lyndon Cornelius

Chief Justice

Entered on this 25th day of February, 1998 .

_______________

Chief Clerk of Court, Kosrae


	KOSRAE STATE COURT FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA *Cite as Melander v. Sam & Jackson.* (Kosrae 1998) [page 1] MELANDER T. MELANDER Plaintiff, vs. BOAZ T. SAM AND DORITHY JACKSON, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-95 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Introduction This matter came on as regularly scheduled for trial before me this 16th day of October, 1995 in the Kosrae State Court. Representing the plaintiff was Mr. Patrick Olter and for the defendants was Mr. Canney Palsis of the Micronesian Legal Services Corporation. Findings of Fact 1. Sometime in 1994, plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam agreed to a sale of a car by plaintiff Melander to defendant Boaz Sam in the amount of $5,600.00. 2. In exchange for the car, defendant Boaz Sam agreed to give portion of land situated at Pukusrik Te in the Municipality of Lelu, State of Kosrae also known as Parcel No. 033-K-10. 3. Defendant Boaz Sam upon receipt of the car took plaintiff and plaintiff's wife, Elrin to Pukusrik where defendant Boaz designated the boundaries. [page 2] 4. The boundaries ran from the wetland to the midsection and did not include the area between the midsection and the road. 5. That after defendant Boaz designated the boundaries, plaintiff and his wife expressed some concerns regarding their easy access to the property. 6. The facts also showed that after plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam discussed plaintiff's access to the property at issue, defendant Boaz Sam offered to sale the remaining portion or the area between the road and the midsection to plaintiff, provided, however that plaintiff pay some money. 7. Plaintiff has never paid any money to defendant Boaz Sam. ISSUE The only issue that is presented to this Court to consider is whether there was a breach of contract. A contract is "a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty". 17A AmJur 2d Contract, § 1. It is undisputed that plaintiff and defendant Boaz Sam had a contract in which defendant Boaz Sam agreed to buy and plaintiff Melander T. Melander agreed to sale to defendant Boaz Sam a car for a portion of land at Pukusrik Te, otherwise known as 033-K-10 situated in Lelu Municipality. Defendant Boaz Sam did just that. The evidence presented during the trial of this matter showed that after defendant Boaz Sam picked up the car, he took plaintiff and plaintiff's wife to the property and staked out the boundaries as he promised. [page 3] Breach is defined as a failure without legal excuse to perform any promised which forms a whole or a part of a contract 17A AmJur 2d, Contract. §716. Unless defendant Boaz Sam fails to perform without legal excuse, there is no breach of contract. Such is the case here. Plaintiff failed to show any breach and the court could not fine any evidence to show that defendant Boaz Sam in fact failed to perform his legal duty, thus there was not breach of contract. Conclusion** This court has found no breach of contract and issued order as follows: 1. That defendant Dorithy Jackson be dismissed from this action with prejudice; and 2. That plaintiff's land runs from the wet land to the midsection of Parcel No. 033-K-10 as designated by defendant Boaz Sam; and 3. That the land between the road and the midsection is owned and belongs to defendant Boaz Sam and that plaintiff, his representatives, agents, and successors have no legal rights to enter and/or use such property. SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1998. ___/s/__________ Lyndon Cornelius Chief Justice Entered on this 25th day of February, 1998 . _______________ Chief Clerk of Court, Kosrae