Court Opinion

ID: 9653747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:53:04.049159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:01.127124
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Norvell, joined by Justice Smith,
concurring.
I concur in the decision reached in this particular case as it seems that assuming the contract has not been substantially performed, the recovery permitted under the facts pleaded by Chambless would be measured by the difference between the value of the building as actually constructed and its value had it been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications of the contract. This rule, however, if it can be properly called a general rule, is subject to numerous exceptions. This difference in values is not necessarily the measure of damages when the default of the contractor is wilful or intentional. Groves v. John Wunder Co., 205 Minn. 163, 286 N.W. 235, 123 A.L.R. 502. Nor should it be the exclusive measure where it is shown that the owner of property desiring construction thereon is dependent upon a loan commitment which is based upon completion of the work in accordance with plans and specifications, nor where an essential element of the contract from the owner’s standpoint is the “gratification of his taste” for which he has contracted and agreed to pay money. Marsh v. Richards, 29 Mo. 99, Ann. 23 A.L.R. 1442. Chamberlain v. Parker, 45 N.Y. 569, lc. 572. Other instances may be given to illustrate that the rule is by no means exclusive. I concur in the present judgment because no facts are pleaded which would render a measure of damages other than the differences in values properly applicable to the case.
Opinion delivered April 3, 1957.
Rehearing overruled May 8, 1957.