Opinion ID: 2129946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: instruction conference

Text: At the instruction conference, Larry Hoffman and Miller tendered instructions on an architect's duty of reasonable care and fiduciary duty. The tendered instruction on an architect's duty of reasonable care proposed that an architect has the duty to perform contractual duties with skill, ability, judgment and taste reasonably and without neglect. The tendered instruction on fiduciary duty stated that an architect is duty bound to make a full disclosure of all matters, of which he has knowledge, which it is desirable or important that his principal learn. The tendered instruction on fiduciary duty also provided that an architect, who knows that construction cost is an important factor to the architect's client, must supply the client with some idea of the final cost of the project. The court refused the tendered instructions. Hoffman and Miller objected to the court's instruction outlining the parties' contentions because the instruction did not mention the counterclaim based on breach of duty. The court remarked: I am going to rule at this time that a breach of duty is not a proper issue in this case. It is a contract case and I am not going to instruct on it. Your objection ... is overruled. In instruction No. 10, however, the court gave the following: It is the law in Nebraska that in contracts for architectural services the following rules are applicable; An architect is bound to make full disclosures of all matters of which he had or should have knowledge and which it was important that his client should know. An architect may breach his contract for architectural services by underestimating the construction costs of a proposed structure if he has agreed to stay within a certain dollar budget. The rule to be applied is that the costs of construction must reasonably approach that stated in the dollar budget unless the owners order changes which increase the cost of construction. Consequently, the common denominator in the instructions, both requested and given, was breach of an architect's duties to remain within budget for a project and to inform the client about any important matter, such as cost overrun. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Getzschman for $35,999.97, the full amount claimed as damages, and found against Hoffman and Miller on their counterclaim. Asserting that the evidence has established, as a matter of law, a defense to [the] breach of contract, Hoffman and Miller filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or remittitur, which the court overruled. In its judgment, the district court included an allowance of interest at the legal rate. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 45-102 (Reissue 1988).