Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)

Citation
Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)
Parent Document
Grenfell v. Anderson, 1999 MT 272 (1999)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
1999-11-09

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text

1,059 chars
¶ The District Court concluded that Anderson did not present credible evidence to support his claim for
damages against Grenfell. In its findings of fact, the District Court stated that "a false and misleading
description of the use of the property cannot provide a credible basis for damage calculation." This finding
resulted from evidence at trial that the sublease agreement between Anderson and Houldson, which is the basis
for Anderson’s claim of lost profits, stated that the "premises are in fit condition for use by Lessee as a print
shop." Evidence showed that Houldson, to the contrary, intended to use the premises as a computer equipment
repair shop. The District Court further relied on an earlier order, which granted a preliminary injunction in
favor of Grenfell, that found that "there is no evidence before this Court that . . . Anderson will be damaged in
any way by the issuance of this temporary injunction." The injunction prevented Anderson from terminating
his sublease with Bice, and thereby prevented him from subletting to Houldson.