Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P leased its crane to the Ashton Company. The lease was for a nine-month term. Ashton hired D to transport the crane from Tempe to Tucson by August 1, 1975. D dismantled and loaded the crane on its trucks in Tempe for the trip to Tucson. D was notified of the arrival in West Phoenix of a 246,000-lb. transformer that D had previously contracted to put into place at a West Phoenix Arizona Public Service sub-station. D called Ashton's equipment manager to request permission to use the crane to unload the transformer prior to the trip to Tucson. D moved to crane to the West Phoenix jobsite on Thursday and reassembled it on Friday before Ashton told D, 'That the deal would have to be made with P.' D already owed another Artukovich Company some money. D used the crane without ever having received permission from P. The crane was then delivered to Tucson where after replacement of the cable and a safety inspection it was used by Ashton pursuant to the lease. D did not make any further efforts to seek out P and pay a rental fee for the use of the crane. P sued D on three counts: Counts I and III sounding in tort for the act of conversion and Count II on an implied contract theory. P got a judgment for use of the crane (one-month minimum rental) $5,500.00; Crane inspection fee, $493.05; Replaced cable, $963.54; Attorney's fees in the amount of $3,500.00; Punitive damages in the amount of $2,500.00. D motion for a new trial over the correctness of awarding attorney's fees and punitive damages in the same action, and P's judgment for the lump sum of $12,956.59 was vacated, and P was given judgment in the amount of $6,956.59 for actual damages and $6,000.00 punitive damages plus costs. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.