Henderson v. Oakes Waterman, Builders

California Court of Appeal May 1, 1941 No. Civ. 12918Published

Before: Desmond

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in applying Civil Code section 3358 to limit damages to the contract price, determining instead that section 3300 governs to fully compensate the plaintiff for all detriment proximately caused by the defendants' willful breach and abandonment of the contract.

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly applied Civil Code section 3358 to limit damages to the contract price in a case of willful breach and abandonment.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full cost of reconstruction plus damages for loss of use and rental value under Civil Code section 3300.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We do not approve the action of the trial court which reduced the amount of damages from $3,702.49 to $2,500, for the reason that we are unable to apply section 3358 of the Civil Code to the situation here presented.”

“It seems to us that, in determining the question of damages in this case, section 3300 of the Civil Code is applicable, rather than section 3358.”

[616]

DESMOND, J.,

pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment which the trial court refused to vacate in passing upon appellant’s motion directed to that end as well as to the entry of another and different judgment, as provided by section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal is also taken from the order denying the motion to vacate.

Approximately seven days were required to try this ease without a jury, but we have no transcript of the testimony before us, and must rely therefore upon the clerk’s transcript, including the pleadings, findings, conclusions and judgment. It appears that on March 8, 1939, A. Ray Henderson signed a builder’s contract with the defendants, calling for the construction, in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner, of a dwelling upon his lot, according to plans and specifications attached to said contract. These specifications described in great detail the quality of materials to be furnished in the building of the house, which by the terms of the contract was to be finished within 45 days after the date thereof. The contract price for the building so constructed was fixed at $2,500, which sum Mr. Henderson paid in full on the day he signed the contract. The court found that instead of completing the building in the manner provided by the contract and specifications within the stated period of 45 days, the construction commenced on the 13th day of March and was continued intermittently until on or about the 17th of August, 1939, “when the said defendants abandoned the said contract and ceased all work thereunder’’. The court further found that they “willfully failed and neglected to fulfill the said contract on their part. . . . that the said defendants, in the doing of such work as was done by them under said contract, willfully used materials which were contrary to those specified under said contract and of inferior grade thereto and unsuitable therefor, and that the said defendants erected said building in so unskillful and negligent manner, that after such work was done as was done by the said defendants the said building was and is now entirely untenantable and useless’’.

Mr. Henderson passed away on January 25, 1940, and the suit was prosecuted by his administratrix, who was substituted as plaintiff herein.

Henderson v. Oakes Waterman, Builders

AI Brief

DESMOND, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief