Opinion ID: 267450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: C. H. McKerreghan.

Text: 112 C. H. McKerreghan was a subcontractor for 2 and 4 gas mains and 1 and 1¼ gas service lines and for all concrete headwalls and concrete curb inlets. See Defendant's Exhibit 2.1. McKerreghan's contract was with the entity, Williams, Dunlap, and Young, which was the utility subcontractor for the housing project. 113 Considering the totality of facts, the district court found that McKerreghan did not substantially perform his contract, that his work was mismanaged, very poor, and that unacceptable installation was the rule rather than the exception. Therefore the district court concluded that he was not entitled to recover under the contract. 210 F.Supp. at 518-19. 114 In essence, McKerreghan contends that he did substantially perform his contract and that he is entitled to recover the balance due under the contract, extra costs and for lost profits, or a total of $22,246.47. 115 However, we note that the district court found that, assuming arguendo that McKerreghan had substantially completed his contract, we would nevertheless reach the conclusion that Mr. McKerreghan has nothing coming to him. 210 F.Supp. at 519. The court noted that the total contract price was $24,889.80, and that McKerreghan was paid directly $19,627.33 and that $3,866.47 was paid to others in his behalf. Concerning the balance of $1,396, the court emphasized that this much at least was necessarily expended in completing the testing of the gas lines and in making fundamental repairs. 116 McKerreghan does not contend that the district court was in error in finding that $3,866.47 was paid to others in his behalf, although he does consider that figure as being arbitrarily assigned by the prime contractor's bookkeeper and foreman. However, McKerreghan does contend that he is entitled to $12,234 for extra work performed and to $7,000 for profits lost, due to alleged breaches of contract by the prime contractor. We note, however, that the district court found that McKerreghan's alleged extra work, if any occurred, arose out of his own misjudgment and was not the fault of the partnership of Williams, Dunlap and Young. After reviewing the evidence on this point [compare Record pp. 2083-88 with Record pp. 1719-29], we conclude that the finding of the district court was not erroneous. And even if McKerreghan was entitled to lost profits, we think he has failed to prove the amount of his claim with reasonable certainty. See Record, p. 2084. 30 117