Case Name: VAUGHAN CONTRACTORS, INC., v. Jules CAHN and Emile Cahn
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-11-30
Citations: 629 So. 2d 1225
Docket Number: No. 93-CA-0008
Parties: VAUGHAN CONTRACTORS, INC., v. Jules CAHN and Emile Cahn.
Judges: Before CIACCIO, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 629
Pages: 1225–1234

Head Matter:
VAUGHAN CONTRACTORS, INC., v. Jules CAHN and Emile Cahn.
No. 93-CA-0008.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1993.
Order Denying Rehearing Jan. 14, 1994.
Robert H. Matthews, DeRussy, Bezou & Matthews, New Orleans, for plaintiff/appel-lee.
Gordon F. Wilson, Jr., Friend, Wilson, Draper, Hubbard & Bowling, New Orleans, for defendants/appellants.
Before CIACCIO, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.

Opinion:
PLOTKIN, Judge.
Defendants Jules and Emile Cahn ("the Cahn brothers") appeal a trial court judgment awarding plaintiff Vaughan Contractors, Inc. $30,000 in this demolition contract dispute. We affirm.
The Cahn brothers owned the property at 408 Howard Avenue in the City of New Orleans on December 24, 1989, when the building, which was leased to Pelican Ice Co., suffered serious fire damage during an unusually severe freeze. Thereafter, the City insisted that the building be demolished. Time was of the essence because of concern that some of the walls of the building which were left standing might collapse into the street and hit a passing vehicle or hit one of the homeless people who were known to inhabit the area. In fact, the street had to be closed until the building was demolished.
Jules Cahn's son, Jimmy, solicited bids from a number of demolitions contractors, including the plaintiff, Vaughan Contractors, which offered an initial oral bid of $46,000 to do the work; another contractor, L & M Demolition and Hauling, Inc., submitted the lowest bid of $40,000. Thereafter, the City indicated to the Cahns that it would prefer to have Vaughan Contractors do the work since City personnel were familiar with that company's work. After negotiations with Jules Cahn, H.P. Vaughan submitted a written bid from his company for $40,000.
Thereafter, Vaughan Contractors and the Cahn brothers entered a written contract on January 5,1990. The contract was prepared by Vaughan and appeared on his company stationary. Among the provisions of the contract was the following: "All salvaged materials shall become the property of Vaughan Contractors, Inc. and shall be removed along with the trash and debris. Salvaged materials shall include contents, installed equipment as well as the complete building." Vaughan Contractors obtained a City permit to perform the demolitions operation on January 10, 1990.
Meanwhile, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was conducting an arson investigation on the property. Therefore, when Vaughan Contractors workers reported to the site to perform the demolition on January 11,1990, they were not able to begin operations. Vaughan testified at trial that they did some work at the request of ATF in an attempt to avoid losing money.
Moreover, the demolitions operations was further delayed by a dispute over ownership of some of the equipment in the building, which the Cahn brothers had told Vaughan would be part of the salvage. Although Pelican Ice personnel had reportedly initially told the Cahns that they did not want the equipment, they later changed their mind and decided they did want it. Vaughan Contractors originally disputed Pelican Ice's right to the property, but later gave up any claim to the equipment. However, the dispute and the resulting necessity to postpone the demolitions to allow removal of the equipment prevented Vaughan Contractors from commencing operations at least until January 24, 1990.
On that date, January 24, 1990, Jules and Jimmy Cahn met with Vaughan, Pelican Ice owner Arthur Renaudin, and City Inspector Eugene F. Higbee to discuss the situation. During the course of that meeting, Vaughan submitted a letter to Jules Cahn; that letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
Please be advised that due to the fact we are not allowed to work and the dangerous and deteriorating condition of the walls and steel work, our insurance is being removed as of January 24, 1990 as [sic] 12:00 p.m. We cannot assume any liability of any kind on this job. With the insurance adjustment not being completed and a salvage operation about to begin and not being allowed to continue the job, we have no alternative but to terminate our contract. .
If at a later date you want to demolish this building we will be happy to re-bid this job.
Vaughan testified at trial that he wrote the letter in an attempt to avoid liability for injury to any of the people who were running around the site, especially to Pelican Ice workers, who Vaughan felt were engaged in some dangerous practices in attempting to remove Pelican's equipment. Vaughan said that all the parties understood that the letter was written in an attempt to avoid liability and that all the parties knew that he would return to the project at the original price after Pelican Ice's equipment had all been removed.
However, both Jules and Jimmy Cahn testified that the letter was a complete surprise to them, although Vaughan had previously threatened to quit the job several times and had in fact removed his workmen on a couple of different occasions. Both Jules and Jimmy Cahn said that Vaughan presented the letter, then immediately left the meeting; they insisted that the parties never had any understanding that Vaughan would be able to come back to the project at the original price once the equipment was removed.
Of course, the City was still anxious to have the building demolished. Therefore, according to the Cahns, Jimmy once again began soliciting bids. Meanwhile, the Cahns also continued to negotiate with Vaughan. For example, Jimmy Cahn secured a letter from Renaudin, in which Pelican Ice indemnified the Cahns and their "demolition contractor against damage to any equipment owned by Pelican Ice and presently remaining in the . building; provided the contractor expends his best efforts to avoid additionally damaging said equipment...." Jimmy Cahn faxed that letter to Vaughan on January 30, 1990, but Vaughan still refused to return to the project, saying that he did not trust Pelican Ice and that the "best efforts" language concerned him.
Then, on the morning of Friday, February 2, 1990, Jules Cahn had a telephone discussion with Vaughan, in which he unquestionably told Vaughan that he could perform the job for the original $40,000 contract price; all parties agree that that conversation occurred. However, Vaughan was seeking $3,000 in standby charges, which Jules Cahn refused to pay. Therefore, Vaughan told Jules Cahn that he would call him back that afternoon to give him an answer.
Vaughan claims that he told Jules Cahn that he would call him back about 1 p.m. Further, he claims that he tried to call Jules Cahn several times, beginning about 1 p.m., but that he was unable to reach Jules Cahn until about 4 p.m. At that time, he told Jules Cahn that he would perform the work for the original contract price and that he was giving up his claim for standby charges. However, Jules Cahn told him that he had already let the contract to another company.
Jules Cahn testified that he did not believe that Vaughan would call him back, so he contacted someone named "Mitchell" fi-om L & M Demolition. Mitchell came to the site immediately and submit a bid, which Jules Cahn accepted in writing on February 3.
Vaughan testified that he reported to the site on Monday, February 5, but could not perform any work because the gate was locked. The Vaughan Contractors crew reported again on Tuesday, February 6, found the gate open, and worked all day, Vaughan said. Then, on Wednesday, February 7, Vaughan's crew was removed from the site by the New Orleans Police Department. L & M subsequently completed the project. Vaughan filed the instant suit for breach of contract.
The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Vaughan Contractors, awarding the company $30,000. The verdict form presented to the jury and the answers provided read as follows:
1. Was [sic] Jules Cahn and Emile Cahn justified in believing the contract was terminated and obtaining another contractor to perform the demolition work?
YES _X_
NO _
2. Did Jules Cahn and Emile Cahn breach the contract in such a way as to make them responsible for damages and/or labor, and material to Vaughan Contractors?
YES _X_
NO
If the answer is NO, please sign and return to court.
If the answer is YES, please answer question #3.
3. Did Vaughan Contractors suffer any damages as a result of a breach of contract by Jules Cahn and Emile Cahn?
YES _JX_
NO
If answer is NO, please sign and return to court.
If answer is YES, please answer question #4.
4. What amount of damages and/or labor, and material, if any, in total, would you award to Vaughan Contractors for the breach of contract in this matter?
$30,000
The trial court entered judgment for $30,-000 in favor of Vaughan. After them motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were denied, the Cahn brothers appealed, assigning a single assignment of error. Both on their motion for JNOV and on appeal the Cahn brothers claim only that the jury interrogatories were misleading, inconsistent, and did not conform to the law. They claim that the jury's answer to interrogatory # 1 is an implied indication that the jury did not believe that they breached any contract with Vaughan Contractors. Thus, the Cahn brothers argue, the answers to the other interrogatories are inconsistent with the answer to the first interrogatory, requiring reversal of the judgment. The problem was caused, the Cahn brothers claim, by the trial court's improper omission of an instruction that the jury simply sign the form and return it to the court if it answered the first question "No."
However, the record reveals that the Cahn brothers never objected to the jury interrogatories in the trial court before the jury retired for its deliberations, as required by law in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See La.C.C.P. art. 1812. By failing to make an objection to the interrogatories before the interrogatories were presented to the jury, the defendants waived their right to have the issue considered on appeal. Soares v. Lewis, 566 So.2d 129 (La.App. 5th Cir.1990); Streeter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 533 So.2d 54 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), writ denied, 536 So.2d 1255 (La.1989).
Additionally, we note that the jury's decision in this case was purely a factual call. Certainly, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's ultimate conclusion that the Cahn brothers breached an oral contract with Vaughan Contractors when it let the contract to the other company.
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a trilogy of recent cases, has consistently instructed the courts of appeal to give great, "even vast," deference to findings of fact made by the trial court. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993). With each pronouncement, the Supreme Court's language becomes stronger, consistently admonishing courts of appeal that error correction in factual disputes is virtually non-existent.
First, the Supreme Court held, in Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989), that when "a factfinder's finding is based on its decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, that finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." Id. at 845. In fact, after Rosell, the only factual findings subject to reversal were those "[wjhere documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness's story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable fact finder would not credit the witness's story." Id.
The Rosell language was further developed in Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993), which emphasized the principle that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence "cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong." Id. at 883. The principle is then reaffirmed in Youn, 623 So.2d 1257, which discusses the "vast" discretion afforded a factfinder in reference to setting damage awards, and concludes that "an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages." Id., 623 So.2d at 1261.
The Supreme Court's indication that a trial court judgment should rarely be disturbed can only mean that reversal of a judgment is warranted only in those rare cases where the record contains little or no evidence to support the trial court's conclusions. In the instant case, the trier of fact, the jury, was faced with two different ver sions of the facts leading up to the defendants' decision to award the contract to L & M Demolition, rather than Vaughan Contractors. The jury chose to believe Vaughan's version of the story. That decision is supported by the record, and, thus, is not subject to reversal.
Despite the fact that the jury's factual conclusions in this ease are supported by the record, the dissent would reverse the trial court judgment on the basis of a legal error which was not raised by the parties in either the trial court or the appeals court. The question of whether Vaughan proved the existence of an oral contract to perform the demolition was not even presented to the jury in this ease; moreover, the Cahn brothers never objected to that omission in the trial court. Additionally, the issue was not briefed by the parties in this court. Under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for this court to reverse a trial court judgment on the basis of a legal issue never asserted by the parties. In fact, the dissenting judge herself notes that it is inappropriate to consider legal issues not raised in the trial court nor briefed in this court when she refuses to consider awarding quantum meruit to Vaughan, despite her admission that he would be entitled to such recovery, simply because he failed to raise the issue at trial.
Accordingly, the trial court judgment awarding Vaughan Contractors $30,000 against the Cahn brothers for breach of the demolition contract is affirmed in all respects.
AFFIRMED.
CIACCIO, J., concurs with reasons.