AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant, Custom Plumbing & Heating Co., LLC, for services. A dispute arose regarding whether the defendant breached the contract by not performing a "full inspection," which the plaintiffs argued should have included more than just the HVAC units.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Clay Campbell, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's determination that the defendant did not commit a breach of contract.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the contract required a full inspection beyond just the HVAC units and that the court applied the incorrect standard of review by assuming an ambiguity in the contract terms.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the agreement was limited to the inspection of the HVAC units, supported by testimony and a letter that memorialized the work completed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant required a full inspection beyond just the HVAC units.
• Whether the metropolitan court applied the correct standard of review in interpreting the contract terms.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, which had affirmed the metropolitan court's determination that the defendant did not commit a breach of contract.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Bustamante, J., and Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The existence of the contract and its terms were in dispute, presenting a factual question for the metropolitan court to determine. The evidence supported the metropolitan court's determination that the "full inspection" agreed upon was limited to the HVAC units (paras 1-2).
  The plaintiffs' contention that the court applied the incorrect standard of review by assuming an ambiguity was rejected. The court clarified that the standard of review for interpreting the terms of an unwritten agreement, such as the one in question, is not de novo. The letter cited by the plaintiffs did not constitute a legally enforceable contract but was a memorialization of the work completed, thus part of the evidence reviewed by the metropolitan court (paras 3-4).
  The plaintiffs' challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting the metropolitan court's decision, based on the parol evidence rule and irrelevant personal experience regarding building codes, was dismissed. The appellate court concluded that these contentions did not affect the metropolitan court's decision, which was found to be supported by substantial evidence (para 5).