Title: Lipinsky v. Hufft
Citation: 533 P.2d 328
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 1, 1975

533 P.2d 328 (1975)
Anthony B. LIPINSKY, Appellant,
v.
James HUFFT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted February 4, 1975.
Decided April 1, 1975.
*329 Jack A. Gardner, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Allen L. Johnson and Ernest Lundeen, Eugene.
Richard E. Miller of Miller, Moulton &amp; Andrews, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
BRYSON, Justice.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the balance due under the terms of a contract to remodel a building. Defendant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were denied, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. On defendant's motion the court set aside the judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendant n.o.v. Plaintiff appeals, contending the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of all favorable evidence and all favorable inferences which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Austin v. Sisters of Charity, 256 Or. 179, 183, 470 P.2d 939 (1970); Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc., 265 Or. 486, 490, 509 P.2d 1199 (1973).
On October 7, 1968, plaintiff, as contractor, and defendant, as owner, entered into the following contract:
Defendant's answer admits each of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint above set forth and counterclaimed against plaintiff for damages for plaintiff's failure to complete performance of the contract within 90 days, for failure to perform the contract in a good and workmanlike manner, and for reimbursement because of overpayment of the contract, together with attorney's fees.
Plaintiff's amended complaint sets forth three requests for relief: (1) the balance of the written contract of $1,500; (2) an additional sum of $2,500 which the defendant would pay to the plaintiff after completion of the contract; and (3) extra work performed by plaintiff outside of the original contract in the amount of $3,563.74. The court instructed the jury as follows:
The evidence shows that the parties originally entered into a contract for the sum of $65,807, but defendant could not secure a loan in excess of $60,000. Thereafter the two parties conferred with the architect; certain changes were made in an attempt to reduce the amount of the contract and defendant agreed to perform part of the labor and further agreed, as admitted, that he would pay the plaintiff an additional $2,500 following the completion of the project. This accounts for the execution of the new contract involved in this litigation in the amount of $60,307.
Mr. Keefe, defendant's architect and the supervisor of the project, testified that by May of 1969, but for certain minor details, plaintiff had substantially completed all of the work required under the architect's plans and specifications. He further testified that all work under the written agreement was completed by June 9, 1969. There was evidence from which the jury could find that the parties had waived the "first-class" and "best practices" standard when the parties rewrote the contract and agreed to the employment of non-skilled laborers, including the labor of the defendant. The court submitted this issue to the jury as a question of fact with proper instructions. Mr. Keefe testified:
After plaintiff had completed the items in the "punch list," the architect gave his final approval. He testified:
Mr. Keefe testified that all work under the written agreement was completed by June 9, 1969. He also testified that he had no control or supervision of the "extra work" not included in the written contract but that he was aware that plaintiff and defendant had agreed to certain "extra work" on and about the nursing home.
The trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict merely states:
However, defendant, in his points and authorities submitted to the trial court in support of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contended:
Defendant again contends, before this court, that plaintiff did not establish the general conditions of the agreement between the parties. The contract provided, "1. CONTRACTOR agrees to construct according to plans and specs, * * *." Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 covers the specifications for the work done by plaintiff on defendant's nursing home under the contract as set forth in paragraph I of plaintiff's complaint. It does not include "extra work." At the beginning of the written specifications is the following language:
Mr. Keefe testified:
Mr. Keefe was not asked to produce articles 1 through 14 of A.I.A. No. 201, but he testified at length as to what his duties were and those of plaintiff and defendant under the written contract and that the "General conditions * * * articles 1 thru 14" dealt with his duties as architect on the project. The "plans and specs" as called for in the contract were received in evidence and fully testified to by the witnesses. Therefore, there was competent evidence on the material allegation in paragraph I of plaintiff's pleading pertaining to the written contract.
In Davis v. Bush &amp; Lane Piano Co., 124 Or. 585, 588, 265 P. 417, 418 (1928), an action to recover for labor and materials furnished by plaintiff and the repair and alteration of a store building, the complaint set forth two causes of action; one under a written contract and the other under an oral contract. The answer, as in the case at bar, admitted that both of said contracts were entered into by plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff received a jury verdict and defendant appealed, contending that the court erred in refusing to allow defendant's *333 motion for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict. We held:
Likewise, in the case at bar there is substantial evidence to show that plaintiff performed all of the conditions of the written contract on his part to be performed.
We have fully reviewed the lengthy transcript of testimony and find there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict in accordance with the court's instructions. It is impossible to determine from the jury's verdict of $4,164.92, for construction and remodeling, what items they chose to delete from plaintiff's demands. A large portion of the testimony pertains to plaintiff's demand for "extra work performed" and defendant's denial thereof.
Reversed with instructions to reinstate the judgment based upon the jury's verdict.