Case Name: WENDEL v. MAYBURY et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1954-03-29
Citations: 75 So. 2d 379
Docket Number: No. 20072
Parties: WENDEL v. MAYBURY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 75
Pages: 379–383

Head Matter:
WENDEL v. MAYBURY et al.
No. 20072.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.
March 29, 1954.
On Rehearing Nov. 8, 1954.
Forteous & Johnson, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard Dowling, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
JANVIER, Judge.
This is a suit by a building contractor for a balance alleged to be due to him on a ten per cent commission which he alleged defendants agreed to pay him on what is termed "a cost-plus" building contract under which he agreed to erect for defendants a building for which they were to pay all costs of labor and material and then a commission to him on the said cost.
The defense is that the contract was for a specified price and that the total contract price has been fully paid. From a judgment dismissing his suit, plaintiff has appealed.
The record shows that E. H. Maybury and his son, Wayne Maybury, owned a piece of real estate in New Orleans'and that they decided to construct on it a building to be used in their business. They consulted their friend, Elmer Emile Wendel, the present plaintiff who was a building contractor. - Wendel agreed to construct the building but there was no written contract. As the work progressed, Wendel called upon defendants for payments which were made and which 'finally totaled the sum of $9,296.40.
Plaintiff rendered a statement to defendants in which he showed that he had expended for their account $9,256.58 and to this he added his commission of ten per cent, making a total of $10,182.23. He showed that he had received from defendants the amount set forth, to-wit $9,296.40, and he made demand for the balance to which he claims he was entitled. According to this statement this balance amounted to $885.83. He brought this suit for that amount.
The defendants admitted that plaintiff had been employed to construct the building, but they averred that he had agreed to do so for a fixed contract price of $9,296.40, which amount they had paid, and they denied liability for any balance.
Except for some minor disputes over small amounts, a determination of the entire controversy depends upon a solution of the' question of whether the contract called for a fixed price or was on what is termed a cost-plus basis, that is to say, whether defendants agreed that they would reimburse plaintiff for all costs of labor, material, etc., and then pay him a commission of ten per cent on the balance.
In our opinion the record leaves no room for doubt. We think it is conclusively shown that plaintiff agreed to construct the building for defendants and that they were to pay all the costs and, in addition, a commission of ten per cent to him.
In the first place, although in their answer defendants aver that the contract price was fixed at the rather odd figure of $9,296.40, in their testimony they both state that the agreed contract price was $9,200. In the second place, it appears that on several occasions during the progress of the work the elder of the defendants, without consulting plaintiff, ordered certain changes to be made each of which increased the cost of the work. Surely if there had been a •fixed contract price he would have had no right to do so without first obtaining the approval of the contractor.
It further appears that on numerous occasions before the defendants made payment to plaintiff, they required that he exhibit to them the bills which he had paid for material or for labor. Had the contract been for a stipulated price, they would have had no interest in the amount of those bills.
It also appears that although Mrs. Wayne Maybury, the wife of one of the defendants, was called to the stand to testify and said that she knew that the contract was for a fixed price, she also said that it was understood that if the actual cost should be less than $9,200, ' " the charges would be reimbursed to us, in our favor, back to us." She was finally asked if it was not a fact that it was understood that if the cost was less than $9,200, her husband and her father-in-law "would save the difference," and she answered, "That is what I understood the agreement to be."
In addition to certain changes which were ordered by one of the defendants, it is shown that the defendants preferred another type of concrete block to the type selected by the plaintiff, and that they ordered this other type although the cost thereof exceeded that of the blocks selected by the contractor.
In addition to these faicts, there was other verbal testimony to the effect that it had been understood that the building was to be erected on a cost plus basis. Mr. I. L. Shaddinger, one of the materialmen who was to furnish the concrete blocks which were not acceptable to the defendants, said that he heard Mr. Maybury (Sr.) mention that the building was being erected "on time and material," and he "was trying to get it as cheap as he could."
Albert Duncan, a bricklayer who laid most of the concrete blocks, says that he was ordered by Mr. Maybury (Sr.) to make a change in the construction of the building, .and he was asked why he did this on instructions of Maybury "instead of waiting for your boss, Mr. Wendel to tell you" ? He answered, "Well, he had said it was a time and material job." When asked, "Who said that"-he answered, "Mr; Maybury."
Mr. C. W. Montague, who says that hg does foundation work and that he drove the pilings and put in the foundation beams and poured the concrete floor, says that Mr. E. H. Maybury was present at various times while he was working on the job and that Mr. Wendel and Mr. Maybury both told him that "it was cost-plus."
In spite of the statement of Mr. Maybury, Sr., that, at the time at which the contract was entered into, all details concerning the type of material were agreed upon, the record leaves us with the very distinct impression that this was not correct and that various materials were selected after the work was started. Surely no contractor, after agreeing on a fixed price, would have permitted the owner to select materials which might cost more than those contemplated when the contract was entered into.
It also appears that one of the subcontractors voluntarily agreed that a portion of his work had been defective and refunded $500 which seems to have been the estimated cost of doing that particular work over again. While there is some doubt on the question, the record leaves us with the conclusion that this amount was credited to the account of the defendants. If there was a fixed contract price, surely the contractor who would have been called upon to do the work over would have been entitled to this refund.
The only fact which throws any doubt at all on the amount which is due to the plaintiff is that after the work was practically completed, he sent a statement to the defendants in which he showed that he had expended for their account $8,696.40, and that his commission amounted to $869.64 and that therefore the total amount due was $9,566.04. This statement also showed that- since the defendants had paid him $9,286.80, there was a balance due of $279.- 24. Plaintiff's explanation of this is that after this statement was rendered, certain additional work was required amounting to $592.15. If this is correct, then the total amount due to plaintiff should be based on the original expenditure, $8,696.40, plus the additional amount of $592.15, which would make a total expenditure of $9,288.55. On this basis the commission at ten per cent would have been $928.85, making a grand total of $10,217.40. Since it is conceded that defendants had paid $9,286.80, the total balance due would have to be $930.60. However, plaintiff has claimed in. his petition only $885.83 and his recovery must be limited to this amount.
The judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided and reversed, and there is now judgment in favor of plaintiff, Elmer Emile Wendel, and against defendants, E. H. May-bury and Wayne Maybury, jointly, severally and in solido, in the full sum of $885.83, with legal interest from judicial demand; defendants to pay all costs.
Reversed.