Opinion ID: 2050023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Septic System

Text: Beaulieu does not contest the court's finding that the septic system was defective and unworkmanlike, but he contends that the court erred in basing the award of damages on the $4,000 cost of the replacement system actually installed by the Parsons in 1978. Beaulieu argues that this replacement cost was not the proper measure of damages because the replacement system was larger, more elaborate, and more expensive than the original system. Arguing that the new larger capacity system put the plaintiffs in a better position than they would have been if the original system had not malfunctioned, the defendant concludes that damages should be limited to restitution of the $1,000 paid for the original system. Damages for defective performance under a construction contract may be measured either by the difference in value between the value of the performance contracted for and the value of the performance actually rendered, or by the amount reasonably required to remedy the defect. Wimmer v. Down East Properties, Inc., 406 A.2d 88, 92 (1979); 5 A. Corbin, Me., Contracts § 1089 (1964). The question of which of these measures is appropriate in this case is not before us. In its pretrial order, the trial court stated that damages would be measured by the cost of repairs which were necessary to give plaintiffs what they bargained for. Beaulieu did not object to the court's ruling, at trial, that this order was still binding. [2] Therefore, it is too late for Beaulieu to argue that damages should have been measured by anything other than the cost of repairs. The essential questions for the trial court were: (1) what did the parties bargain for? and (2) what was the cost of the necessary repairs? Beaulieu argues that the parties contracted for a limited capacity system because the house would be occupied only by Mr. and Mrs. Parsons and they did not intend to use a clothes washer or dishwasher. At trial, there was expert testimony to show that a properly designed septic system must be based on the number of bedrooms in a house and that its capacity cannot be reduced in accordance with the actual number of occupants or their intended usage. Therefore, if the system had been designed for the limited usage contemplated by the Parsons, it would not have been a lawful and adequate system for their three-bedroom house. Beaulieu testified that he told Mr. Parsons that he would issue him a permit for a septic system and that he had received assistance from the former plumbing inspector to build a similar system for his own family. The Parsons testified that they were not told the septic system would be limited and that Beaulieu had guaranteed that it would pass inspection. This evidence supports the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs relied on Defendant's expertise as a builder to install a proper and workmanlike system for them, and never agreed to have an inadequate or unlawful system installed. That a limited capacity system would not have been adequate or lawful is further evidence that the parties did not bargain for such a system. The site-use evaluator consulted by the Parsons testified that the original system had completely failed, was grossly inadequate for their use, was a nuisance, and should be replaced. He stated that the replacement system finally installed was the minimal and least expensive system that could be legally installed on the site. He was absolutely certain that the existing system could not be repaired and he could not legally recommend trying to salvage or expand it. This testimony supports the trial court's findings that the existing system was not repairable and that the $4,000 replacement system was the least expensive alternative system available to correct the defective system installed by Defendant. Beaulieu argues that the remedy is nevertheless unfair because it compensates the Parsons for a system they could not have obtained in 1974, and because the Parsons produced no evidence as to the cost of a minimally acceptable septic system available in June 1974. The court's only finding regarding what could have been done in 1974 was that the raised bed system installed as a replacement in 1978 was not generally known by contractors in the Durham area at the time the original system was installed. The plaintiffs' expert witness testified that, in June 1974, a skillful and prudent contractor would have known that a new plumbing code was to be published in July 1974, and would not have installed a conventional system in a lot that had failed a percolation test, but would have waited to see what alternatives were provided by the new code. Since this testimony shows that a proper and workmanlike installation would have had to comply with the new code, it was proper to compute damages on the basis of systems available under that code. The expert also stated that the only system that would have been available under this new code in the summer of 1974 for an original installation on the Parsons' site would have cost much more than $4,000. In light of that testimony, the court did not err in computing damages on the basis of the less expensive replacement system that later became available. Although the court found that the replacement system had greater capacity than the original system, the original system was not the adequate functioning system that the parties had bargained for. Since installation of the replacement system was the least expensive means of obtaining what they had bargained for, the plaintiffs were not overcompensated.