Eastlake Construction Company v. Hess

686 P.2d 465 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Eastlake (P) sued Hess (D) for $13,719 allegedly owed on a construction contract. P had entered into a contract with D to erect a 5-unit condo building. D counterclaimed for damages for a breach of contract. It was undisputed that P had not been paid $13,719 of the contract price of $118,000. The trial court heard considerable testimony that P had delayed completion of the project, failed to complete the work contracted for, and had performed work with materials on in accordance with contract specifications. The trial court found that P had, in fact, breached the construction contract. The court found that P had wrongfully abandoned the project and that the reasonable cost of completing was $7,979. The court found that Ds were allowed the reasonable rental value from the time construction should have been completed until it was actually completed; $4,262.50. D was allowed damages for the cost of work specified in the plan but not completed; $1,840.55. D were allowed damages for the reasonable cost of repairing work done by P that did not conform to the contract specs: $4,414.01 for the roof, replacing balcony guardrails; $1,580.76, replacing washer and dryer closets: $751.84, venting kitchen hood fans; $926.53 and replacing interior doors; $787.22. Ds were allowed $75 for installation of cable television and $200 for light fixtures. D was also allowed damages for improper installation of kitchen cabinets, which was the difference in value or $5,252.50. The trial court found that P had breached the contract in other aspects but that these breaches did not amount in substantial loss of value to the building. There were nine such items listed by the trial court. The trial court found $27,841.70 in damages to D against the $13,719 owing and thus P got the judgment for $14,122.70. The court of appeals affirmed measuring damages by the cost to remedy the defects. The appeals court modified the damages by increasing them for the cabinets as replacing them were not waste. The appeals court also allowed for replacement costs related to some of the other nine items that were listed by the trial court. Both parties appealed. D claimed that it was improper to apply the cost of remedying defects to a contract that had not been substantially performed and it was improper to conclude that replacing certain items was not waste.