Title: Ilgenfritz v. Radalec, Inc.
Citation: 226 La. 59, 74 So. 2d 903
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 1954

74 So. 2d 903 (1954) 226 La. 59 Hugh C. ILGENFRITZ et ux. v. RADALEC, Inc. et al. No. 40989. Supreme Court of Louisiana. July 2, 1954. Rehearing Denied October 5, 1954. Morgan, Baker &amp; Skeels, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants. Hargrove, Guyton, Van Hook &amp; Hargrove, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-appellees. MOISE, Justice. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the district court, which One of the most refreshing prospects to a court of last resort is when we find reasons for judgment rendered by the trial judge with a rigid impartiality as to the facts of record. We, therefore, adopt the admirable finding of facts to be found in the trial court's reasons for judgment. *904 D. C. Scarborough III, a general contractor employed by plaintiffs to repair and renovate their home and authorized by plaintiffs to execute a contract for the heating of plaintiff's residence, entered into the following contract with the defendants: providing our instructions as to care, maintenance, and operation of the system are followed. We reserve the right to make alterations or change specifications at any time for the betterment of the system. During the winter season of 1949-1950, Radalec, Inc. installed the above described Lennox Heating System in plaintiffs' home. With respect to its operation and to the performance of the guarantee set forth in the contract, the work was a total failure. The trial judge found the following facts with which we are in accord: "The heating system was first placed in operation in the Fall of 1950. During an onset of cold weather around Christmas of 1950 and January of 1951, the system failed to perform satisfactorily or in accordance with the guarantee covenant in the contract. In addition, there occurred peeling of the paint from the walls and ceilings, shrinkage of joints and moldings and shrinkage of floor boards resulting in broad and unsightly cracks. A condition of extreme stratification of air existed ranging from above 110° at ceiling level, 65° at thermostat level, to 48° on the floor level. The upstairs was overheated while the downstairs at the lower living areas, was underheated. At no time during that winter was outside temperature as low as 10°F. Atmospheric conditions within the home produced discomfort and were not conducive to the health of plaintiffs and their small children. The evidence in the case is rather voluminous, but the foregoing recital is a succinct statement *905 of what, in our opinion, the record abundantly establishes. And that the heating system produced these conditions is equally proved. The defendant urged that the defects were partial and he has cited authorities to sustain his view; but, the undisputed fact is that in order to make this heating system live up to the performance of the guarantee made, there must be installed different sizes of units, different appliances and a different location of installation in the house. This would virtually necessitate the installation of a new heating system, *906 as the present one is completely defective. Naturally, when applied to the facts of the instant case, the authorities cited do not apply. The following question was propounded to Mr. Bolinger, a highly regarded expert: In his brief the appellant contends that the district court was in error We do not share defendant's view, because Article 2769 of the LSA-Civil Code provides: In the recent case of Montague v. Milan, La.App., 67 So. 2d 351, 354, the Court held: The standard measure of damages is established by the Code as the losses ensuing from non-compliance. It is shown in this case that the losses sustained is the payment for a useless heating system and its installation, the cost of removing that useless heating system, and the cost of restoring plaintiffs' home to its former condition. These are all losses under the contract. Defendant is liable for those losses. In fact, there should be compensation up to and to the extent for the *907 losses actually sustained in this case amounting to restoration of the status quo: Article 1928 of the LSA-Civil Code reads: The trial court properly found that the law and the evidence was in favor of the plaintiffs, and for these reasons the judgment of the district court will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.