Court Opinion

ID: 9862369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:08:07.43963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:11.735860
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE REINHARD, dissenting: I disagree with the majority’s outright reversal of the judgment in favor of plaintiff. The intent of parties to an oral contract is a question to be determined by the trier of fact, and a reviewing court will not set aside such a finding unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Ceres Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Scrap Processing, Inc. (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 133, 141.) Here, although plaintiff’s theory was that it had a time and materials contract, I agree with the majority that the trial court’s finding of an oral contract for a fixed price, with extras to be reimbursed separately, is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. While the majority correctly concludes that there was insufficient evidence to award damages for unpaid extras in the context of a fixed-price contract, this deficiency is hardly surprising. Plaintiff’s theory below was not based on a fixed-price contract, but a time and materials contract. Under plaintiff’s theory, there were no “extras” because the entire bill was to be computed on a time and materials basis. Where, as here, the trial court improperly assessed contract damages and the record does not allow the reviewing court to make the proper assessment, it is appropriate to remand the cause for a new trial on damages. (W.E. Erickson Construction, Inc. v. Congress-Kenilworth Corp. (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 119, 128.) The majority’s suggestion that plaintiff should have amended its pleadings to conform to the proofs is of no assistance where it is the proofs, not the pleadings, which are lacking. Similarly, while the majority suggests that plaintiff should have moved to reopen the proofs, this could hardly be expected of the party who prevailed at trial on both liability and damages. Because it would be inappropriate to fault plaintiff for failing to segregate its evidence according to a theory which it did not promote, I believe the proper course is to affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for a new trial on damages. While my approach would also necessitate resolution of several other issues raised herein, inasmuch as the majority’s disposition does not address them, I do not do so.