Court Opinion

ID: 9772099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:07:13.348614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.059515
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion because it correctly applies the controlling rule of law to the facts of this case. I feel compelled, however, to state that if we were not bound by the rule of the Atkinson case, my decision would be to the contrary. The holding of the Commission of Appeals in the Atkinson case was adopted by the supreme court, and the opinion in that case has been cited by courts of civil appeals over forty times. Until today, no court of this state has criticized or questioned the rule of the case. I do question it and suggest that the supreme court re-examine the rule. It is not consistent to say that a contractor, such as appellant, after proving substantial performance may recover under the contract, but his measure of recovery is not the contract measure of damages. The measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount necessary to place the party claiming a breach in a financial position equivalent to that in which it would have been had the contract been fully performed by *251both parties. Little Darling Corp. v. ALD, Inc., 566 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1978, no writ). Since substantial performance is full performance for purposes of suing under the contract, the contractor’s damages should be measured by the contract price, because that represents full performance by the owner. This rule works no injustice on the owner; he can counterclaim for, and prove, his damages. This rule is followed in other jurisdictions. Bruner v. Hines, 295 Ala. 111, 324 So.2d 265 (1975); Martin v. Karsh, 142 Cal.App.2d 468, 298 P.2d 635 (1956); Cassinelli v. Stacy, 238 Ky. 827, 38 S.W.2d 980 (1931); Antonoff v. Basso, 347 Mich. 18, 78 N.W.2d 604 (1956); Rickertsen v. Karskadon, 172 Neb. 46, 108 N.W.2d 392 (1961); Dyer v. Lintz, 76 N.J.L. 204, 68 A. 908 (1908); Exton Drive-In, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 436 Pa. 480, 261 A.2d 319 (1969); United States v. Wunderlich Contracting Co., 228 F.2d 66 (10th Cir. 1955).
At common law, the doctrine of substantial performance provided that where the contractor had completed the work under the contract in all significant respects, with only minor and technical variations from the contract, the contractor was entitled to recover the full contract price. His recovery was under the contract because he had, in the contemplation of the law, fully performed. It was said that substantial performance is full performance for purposes of recovery under the contract. 3A Corbin on Contracts § 709, p. 338. The Commission of Appeals in Atkinson correctly stated this principle of the equitable doctrine of substantial performance. The Commission went on to state, however, that the measure of damages for substantial performance is the contract price less the cost of completing the contract so as to render full performance. This rule casts on the contractor the burden of proving the cost to complete as an element of .his cause of action. If no cost to complete is proven, as in the present case, the contractor can recover nothing on the contract even though there has been a finding that the contractor has complied with the contract in all significant respects.
In a situation such as the one presented in Atkinson, and in this case, both parties are claiming a breach by the other party. Thus, there are two separate claims arising from the same contract. The contractor is suing for breach because he has not been given the promised performance of the owner, and because he has not been paid. On the other hand, the owner is suing for breach because he has not been given the promised performance by the contractor in that he has not received the exact building for which he contracted. The rule that seems appropriate in this situation is the general rule that each party has the burden of proving the elements of his own claim. See Sharp v. Chrysler Corp., 432 S.W.2d 131, 135 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Thus, the owner should have the burden of proving his claim for damages. See Edwards v. Blissard, 440 S.W.2d 427, 431 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1969, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
If the contractor in the present case had not counterclaimed for breach of contract, it would seem that the owner would have had the burden of proving the cost to complete because that is the measure of his damages. In that situation, the owner recovers his damages and the contractor is barred from enforcing the promise of the owner to pay because that claim is a compulsory counterclaim to the owner’s suit for damages. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 97(a). Thus, in any suit where the owner claims damages for breach of contract by incomplete performance, the contractor has two choices: (1) prove the owner’s damages, or (2) risk forfeiture of his right to enforce the contract. The first choice is contrary to the well-established rule that the party asserting a claim has the burden of proving it. Sharp v. Chrysler Corp., supra. The second choice is contrary to the reason for the adoption of the equitable doctrine of substantial performance, which was to prevent forfeitures. Professor Corbin criticizes the rule that the contractor cannot recover the contract price if he has committed any breach at all because “it enforces penalties and forfeitures; and the smaller the breach *252the greater the penalty.” 3A Corbin on Contracts § 710, p. 343. The rule of Atkinson effectively abrogates the equitable doctrine of substantial performance.