Opinion ID: 1646498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of proof of defective materials.

Text: Nor do we agree with defendants that trial court erred in not withdrawing from the jury the issue that defendants furnished to plaintiffs materials of an inferior grade and quality, thus causing damage to plaintiffs. Some of the evidence as to quality of the components has been already noted. Many other specific defective or missing items were testified to. The kitchen cabinets were never furnished. When the bands on the shipped lumber were broken it went in all directions because it was warped and twisted. The pre-cut lumber required alterations to make it fit. Oliver testified because of these many defects he spent 800 additional hours in house construction and that the reasonable value of his time was three and a half or four dollars per hour. On the damage issue, defendants have ignored the principle so often enunciated by this court, and most recently in Patterson v. Patterson, 189 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Iowa 1971): Courts have recognized a distinction between proof of the fact that damages have been sustained and proof of the amount of those damages. If it is speculative and uncertain whether damages have been sustained, recovery is denied. If the uncertainty lies only in the amount of damages, recovery may be had if there is proof of a reasonable basis from which the amount can be inferred or approximated. We hold this assignment of error is without merit.