Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., 603 P.2d 513.

66 citing documents.

Ventures 7000 v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ventures 7000 v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Hkb, Inc. v. Imperial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U.S. 476, 490 (1926) (“The general rule, even as between private persons, is that, in the absence of a contract therefor or some statute, compound interest is not allowed to be computed upon a debt.”); Fairway Builders, (declining to award compound interest in absence of supporting authority).
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Synergy v. Singh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Whether a plaintiff failed to mitigate damages is typically “a question of fact for the trier of fact.” Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.
Mesa v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mesa v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at 509; Fairway Builders, –65 (App. 1979); Dawson, 216 Ariz. at 113, ¶ 100.
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin 426 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Chula Vista Homeowners Ass'n v. Irwin 426 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
¶ 61, quoting Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. , , 258, , 529 (App. 1979).
Commerce v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Commerce v. Zinke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U.S. 476, 490 (1926) (“The general rule, even as between private persons, is that, in the absence of a contract therefor or some statute, compound interest is not allowed to be computed upon a debt.”); Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc., (declining to award compound interest in absence of express agreement to the contrary); (construing statute for interest on legal indebtedness to require the application of simple interest unless a
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Eick v. Delta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
rmed or how Eick was to be compensated for those services.3 See, e.g., John C. Lincoln, 208 Ariz. at 544–45, ¶¶ 39, 44 (noting that claims for services “to be paid for at an agreed rate” may be liquidated and observing that plaintiffs “provided a specific method of calculation and the requisite data” to allow ascertainment of exact amount owed); Fairway Builders, (evaluating trial testimony to determine propriety of prejudgment interest and concluding it provided “a basis for precisely calculati
Perkins v. Hon. brain/barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Perkins v. Hon. brain/barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Fairway Builders, (“[T]he victim of a breach of contract may recover damages from the breaching party to compensate for attorneys’ fees and costs expended by the victim to defend a separate suit brought against it as a foreseeable result of the breach.”); Arizona Attorneys’ Fees Manual § 7.2 (Bruce E
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sullivan v. Homes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The purpose of money damages is to put the injured party in as good a condition as that in which full performance would have put him.” Fairway Builders, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346(1) cmt.
Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fairway Builders, -56, -27 (App. 1979).
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest v. Burns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“[W]hether the injured party violated his duty to mitigate damages is a question of fact for the trier of fact, when there is conflicting evidence on the question.” Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc., (citations omitted).
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Next Gen Capital, LLC v. Consumer Lending Associates LLC 316 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Because CLA was the breaching party, CLA “ha[d] the burden of proving that mitigation was reasonably possible but not reasonably attempted.” Fairway Builders, -56 , -27 (App.1979) (applying the mitigation doctrine to a construction contract and holding, as a matter of law, that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proof on mitigation).
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 236 P.3d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ss of the litigation costs.” ¶ 61 Generally speaking, when one party’s breach of contract places the other in a situation that “makes it necessary to incur expense to protect his interest, such costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, should be treated as the legal consequences of the original wrongful act and may be recovered as damages.” Fairway Builders, , (quoting U.S. Fid.
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
See Fairway Builders, -65 , -36 (App.1979).
Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co. 919 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Alta Vista Plaza, Ltd. v. Insulation Specialists Co. 919 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Examples of liquidated claims are paychecks, Fleming , real, estate commissions, Banner Realty , insurance policy limits, Lake Havasu Community Hosp., Inc., and cost-plus claims, Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 917 P.2d 222 Ariz. 1996
Fairway Builders, , (Prejudgment interest is measured from the date of demand “in cases where no definite time for payment is stated.”).
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Paul R. Peterson Construction, Inc. v. Arizona State Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund 880 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Fairway Builders, -65 , -36 (App.1979).
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rhue v. Dawson 841 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The narrow holding of our decision in Fairway Builders, , is an exception to this rule and is not contrary to it.
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 799 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 799 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Northern Arizona Gas Service, Inc. v. Petrolane Transport, Inc., , Fairway Builders
Lindsey v. University of Arizona 754 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Lindsey v. University of Arizona 754 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
2430 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983), , Fairway Builders, , and Sorensen v. Robert N. Ewing General Contractor, 8 Ariz.App.
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Fairway Builders, , this court rejected appellant’s argument that prejudgment interest should have been compounded.
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 759 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Clark 759 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co. 733 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See Fairway Builders, -58 , -29 (App.1979).
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance 733 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trimble v. American Savings Life Insurance 733 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See Fairway Builders v. Malouf Towers Rent *559 al Co., -65 , -36 (App.1979).
Mattison v. Johnston 730 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Mattison v. Johnston 730 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.