398 CHAPTER X REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF nominal, or liquidated (topics that were pr

Question

398 CHAPTER X REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF nominal, or liquidated (topics that were previously explained in Chapter VII) CONTRACT The following case involves breach of contract claims between homeowners and a building con- tractor. The homeowners discharged the contractor because of defective work. The contractor filed suit against the homeowners to recover damages. The Mainc Supreme Court vacated the trial court's judgment on the homeowners' counterclaim cause of errors in the jury nstructions regarding An injured party who has established a breach of contract is entitled to turn to a court for legal or equitable relief, as discussed in Chapter VII Common Law Remedies In most cases of breach, the injured party is awarded money damages, which can be compensatory Anuszewski v. Jurevic 566 A.2d 742 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine November 28, 1989 Clifford, Justice. Defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Richard and Judy Jurevic appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial in Superior Court.... Because we conclude that the court improperly limited the jury's consideration of damages claimed by the Jurevics, we vacate the judg- ment on the counterclaim. caused by Anuszewski's delay in completing the house. The court, however, prohibited the Jurevics from presenting evidence of delay damages beyond January 5, 1988, the date the Jurevics terminated the contract with Anuszewski. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court, in its jury instructions, precluded the jury from considering the general contractor's markup as follows: In early 1987, the Jurevics contracted with the plaintiff, Robert E. Anuszewski, a contractor doing business as Pine Tree Post & Beam, for Anuszewski to construct a home for the Jurevics in Kennebunkport. The home was to be completed by June 1, 1987, at a cost of $134,000, and the contract called for the Jure- vics to make periodic progress payments. The home was only about fifty percent complete on June 1, 1987 In January, 1988, the Jurevics discharged Anuszewski In March, 1988, Anuszewski brought an action against the Jurevics to recover $39,590. The $39,500 repre- sented, alternatively, the unpaid part of the contract price, or the value of the labor and materials provided by Anuszewski for which he had not been paid. The Jurevics filed a counterclaim. [llf you find that the Jurevics are entitled to re- cover damages from Mr. Anuszewski for comple- tion of the work not done or for repairing work not performed in a workmanlike manner, any amount of damages that you award must be the cost of doing that work by the various workmen without any markup to a general contractor, such as was testified to by [the Jurevics' expert witness The jury returned a verdict awarding Anuszewski damages of $25,000 on his complaint and awarding $22,000 to the Jurevics on their counterclaim. This appeal by the Jurevics followed the denial of their At trial, the Jurevics presented evidence that the construction work was defective and testimony in the motions for a mistrial, or in the alternative, for a nevw form of an expert opinion as to the total cost to cor- trial and for additur. rect the defects and to complete the house. The tes- timony indicated that this cost would include a general contractor markup of fifty the actual cost of the work to be done for overhead torecover. The purpose of contract damages is to place and profit, and that this was a usual and customary practice of the industry. The Jurevics also claimed da ben in but for the breach, by awarding the value of mages for rental and other incidental expenses We find merit in the Jurevics' contention that the court impermissibly restricted the jury's consideration of the full amount of damages that they were entitled the injured parties in the position they would have the promised performance..The damages for percent added to

Explanation / Answer

Brief case of jurivic and Anuszeweski

It was the case of case of 1987 when Richard Anuszeweski entered in contract with Judy Jurivic for constructing the house of judy . According to contract the house was to be constructed by 1st june 1987 with the cost of $1, 34000 and payment made according to periodic progress. By 1st june 1987 , only 50% of work was completed , so Judy discharged the Richard . In jan. 1988, jurivic discharged Richard. In march 1988 , Richard brought an action against jurivic to recover the $39500, Which is the unpaid PART OF THE contract or value of the labor or material for which he had not been paid.

After this Judy jurivic filed a counterclaim indicate in trial court the testimony of the cost which include the Contractor 50% make up cost with the actual work to be one for overhead and profit. Since the construction work was defective and claim for the damages that judy bears for rental and other incidental expences cause by Richard delay in completing the house.

The trial court Jury return a verdict awarding $25000 to Richard for complaint and $22000 to jurivis for his counter claim. The jurivics Disagree that the supreme court not allowed the jury’s consideration of full amount of damages that they were entitled to recover.

According to court the Those damages for the breach of construction contract was measured by either the difference in the value between the performance promised and performance actually done or amount reasonably required to remove the Defect or differences which is measured by actual cost of necessary repairs. This cost is the proven testimony of expert.

Eventually the supreme court correctly instructed the error of trial court jury made that the amount of Jurivic of the recovery of Incomplete and defective work was reasonably required to remedy the defect which is specifically measured by the ‘cost of repair’. And the cost of repair was Without any Markup Price to a Richard.

Conclusion: Now jurivis was not Entitled the jury to considered their claim that the fair decision was to hire an alternative contractor to supervise the repair and completion of house. But according to Supreme court , the award of damages for the fair cost of the substitute’s contractor expences, which they charged on routine basis. In this case Jurivics was not entitled to claim full recovery in breach of contract. They not see any reason to exclude profit and expenses of a contractor from the cost of repairs . so judgement on the complaint affirmed and Judgement on counterclaim vacate.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.