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

D was at a construction site using a rented skid steer loader. The loader had repeated mechanical problems. D approached P to see whether he would rent P's Bobcat. P was not in the business of leasing his equipment but agreed to do so. The understanding was D would be using the Bobcat for a week or so until the other skid steer was repaired. P contacted an equipment rental company to find out what that company charged per day for a skid steer loader. P was told $300 plus tax, and so decided to charge D $300 per day. The parties entered into a hand-written lease that provided the term would be from '8-27-04 until finished' and that D was to pay rent of $ 300 'per working day.' D had the Bobcat in its possession from August 27 through October 18, 2004. P had twice contacted D to get it returned, and each time he was told that D was still using it. On October 18, 2004, at 8:00 p.m., P went to the jobsite and retook possession. P billed $13,200 and D refused to pay. P filed this action for $13,200 in unpaid rent, damages for failure to return the Bobcat in the condition required by the lease, and prejudgment interest. On February 3, 2005, D paid $ 6,219 as the maximum amount it believed it should owe under the lease. P moved for summary judgment. D responded by arguing that the term 'working day' was ambiguous. D claimed that the Idaho Transportation Department uses a different definition of 'working day' in its contracts. The district court ruled that 'working day' was unambiguous and meant the days D was working on the jobsite. The district court granted P partial summary judgment on the issue of unpaid rent. It held that P was entitled to $13,200 in rent (44 days x $ 300 per day), less the $ 6,219 paid by D. D appealed.

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

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

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