Court Opinion

ID: 9714213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:33:14.47726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.426037
License: Public Domain

ROGOSHESKE, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that it was intended, both by the trial court and by our affirmance, that the *329issue on retrial was the amount of damages. While evidence that plaintiff never intended to use the well water in question was arguably relevant on that issue on the theory that the measure of damages was the cost of connecting to the public water supply less the increase in value of the property so improved, a finding that plaintiff never intended to use the well water would not negate plaintiff’s entitlement to some amount of damages. Surely, given defendant’s liability, plaintiff was entitled to recover at least damages represented by the difference in value of the property bargained for and that in fact conveyed.