Richardson hired J.C. Flood Company, a plumbing contractor, to correct a stoppag

Question

Richardson hired J.C. Flood Company, a plumbing contractor, to correct a stoppage in the sewer line of her house. The plumbing company's "snake" device, used to clear the line leading to the main sewer, became caught in the underground line. To release it, the company excavated a portion of the sewer line in Richardson's backyard. In the process , the company discovered numerous leaks in a rusty, defective water pipe that ran parallel with the sewer line. To meet public regulations, the water pipe, of a type no longer approved for such service, had to be replaced either then or later, when the yard would have to be excavated again. The plumbing company proceeded to repair the water pipe. Though Richardson inspected the company's work daily and did not express any objection to the extra work involved in replacing the water pipe, she refused to pay any part of the total bill after the company completed the entire operation. J.C. Flood Company then sued Richardson for the costs of labor and material it had furnished. Richardson argued that she requested correction only of a sewer obstruction and had never agreed to the replacement of the water pipe. For what, if anything, is Richardson liable?" Discuss.

business law and regulation of busniess book

Explanation / Answer

There was an absence of a written contract between them, but with the appellant admitting that she had requested the appellee for the correction of a sewer obstruction but she is denying that she had approved to replace the water pipe, this shows an existence of an implied agreement between both the parties to replace the water pipe

It looks clear from the incident that there was a clear evidence to upkeep a finding that appellant and her agents with the help of daily examinations of the repairs identified the magnitude of the work that was required and had made no opposition to the show of the extra work in the practice of replacing the water pipe up until the entire job was being finished when appellant has refused to compensate any part of the bill that has been submitted.

Contracts for work that has been done were either express or implied express when their terms were stated by the parties, implied when arising from a mutual agreement and promise not set forth in words. Direct evidence is not essential to prove a contract which may be presumed from the acts and conduct of the parties as a reasonable man would view them under all the circumstances. The testimony was conflicting but we cannot say that the trial court was wrong in holding that the burden of proving its right to recover had been carried by appellee.

With respect to the costs of both jobs the record reveals that no testimony was offered by appellant to show that itemized amounts for labor and materials furnished by appellee were wrong or excessive and unreasonable or that the work performed was either unnecessary or unsatisfactory. Appellee produced testimony that the charges were fair and reasonable and that the work on both the sewer and the water lines was fully completed. We find no merit in appellant's claim of error that the evidence on the costs of labor and material was insufficient to support the finding on this point.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

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