Opinion ID: 2229760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Admission of Evidence and Allowance of Setoffs

Text: Hallam claims that the trial court erred in failing to admit evidence relating to damages on its counterclaim and in failing to properly award setoffs against Lange. Hallam's brief refers to evidence related to work that Wall Construction Company (Wall) performed on unload augers. Wall drafted a proposal for Hallam which consisted of a $13,400 bid to perform 12 repair projects at the grain facility. Wall generated no invoices for the work outlined in the proposal, but Dale Wall, the company's president, testified that his business records reflected that Wall performed various work projects at the facility. Dale Wall could not specifically itemize the work recorded in his business records so that it corresponded with the work listed in the proposal. For some items listed in the proposal, Dale Wall had no records reflecting whether the proposed work was done. The trial court admitted into evidence the proposal from Wall, but stated with regard to Hallam's claim for damages to the unload augers, There is absolutely a total lack of showing and lack of evidence to indicate ... that the work was done or if it was done to differentiate between the charges made and whether they were necessary and any facts that gave rise to it. Hallam later made an offer of proof that its expert witness, Henry Hollman, if permitted, would testify that $4,400 was a fair and reasonable cost of making the repairs that Wall testified his company made to the unload augers. However, the court ruled that Hollman's testimony would be irrelevant on the issue of proving Hallam's actual damages. Without objection, Hollman testified that the repairs Wall made were temporary and that Hollman had been hired to permanently repair the unload augers. Over objection, Hollman testified that the fair and reasonable cost of making the permanent repairs would be $13,871.52. Also admitted into evidence was a bill from an electrician who wired the augers after Wall made its temporary modifications. The trial court did not award Hallam damages for any of these repairs. Hallam's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to admit or consider evidence related to the repair of the unload augers is without merit. Damages are recoverable for losses caused by breach of contract only to the extent that the evidence affords a sufficient basis of ascertaining their amount in money with reasonable certainty. LeRoy Weyant & Sons, Inc. v. Harvey and Classic Lanes, 212 Neb. 65, 321 N.W.2d 429 (1982). It is a basic concept that in any damage action for breach of contract, the claimant must prove that the breach of contract complained of was the proximate cause of the alleged damages. There must be a causal relationship between the damages asserted and the breach relied upon. Proof which leaves this issue in the realm of speculation and conjecture is insufficient to support a judgment. Omaha P. P. Dist. v. Darin & Armstrong, Inc., 205 Neb. 484, 288 N.W.2d 467 (1980); Olson v. Pedersen, 194 Neb. 159, 231 N.W.2d 310 (1975). In its order, the trial court found that although it was inclined to believe that the placement of the unload augers probably was defective, Hallam failed to produce credible evidence of the reasonable cost and necessity for repairs. The trial court stated, [O]ne might find that some modification was necessary but the persons making the actual repairs or modifications should be available in order for this court to determine whether the work done was all necessary to cure the particular defect and was reasonable in amount. Without such credible evidence, the trial court declined to speculate as to the amount of damages. Hollman did not perform any work on the unload augers, and Wall could not itemize the costs for the work it did perform. Similarly, Hallam did not establish that the permanent repairs by Hollman or the electrical wiring were necessary or due to any defects caused by Lange's workmanship. The trial court was not clearly wrong in refusing to speculate as to (1) what repair work Wall did, (2) whether temporary or permanent repairs were related to improper construction by Lange, (3) the reasonable cost of any repairs, or (4) the necessity of any repairs. Hallam also claims that the trial court erred in not awarding setoffs or damages for the costs Hallam incurred in repairing the two ruptured bins, the augers damaged because of the broken temperature cables, and the malfunctioning side draws. The trial court denied these damages because Hallam failed to produce evidence that Lange's construction or installation caused these failures. The trial court's finding of insufficient evidence to prove that Lange caused these damages was not clearly erroneous.