Jones v. Tusa
Also decided on this docket: La., December 11, 1916 73 So. 241
Jones v. Tusa, 100 So. 2d 799 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958).
Cited by
- Woods v. Langenbeck 318 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
- Delta Paving Company v. Woolridge 209 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
- Jim Walter Corporation v. Laperouse 196 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
- Snow-White Roofs, Inc. v. Boucher 182 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
- Gross v. Breaux 144 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Charest v. Busby 141 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Airco Refrigeration Service, Inc. v. Fink 134 So. 2d 880 La. 1961
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Spicuzza v. Ranzino 73 So. 2d 208
- Brandin Slate Co. v. Bannister 30 So. 2d 877
- Merrill v. Harang 198 So. 386
- Reimann Const. Co. v. Upton 178 So. 528
Opinion text
McBride, judge. Plaintiff, as assignee of the building contractor, sues defendant for $835.42, the balance allegedly due on a building contract dated January 18, 1954, for $8,090.40, whereunder the contractor agreed to furnish certain labor, materials and equipment necessary to repair defendant’s building No. 1101 Royal Street which is located in the Vieux Carre and is more than 100 years old. Plaintiff recovered judgment and defendant appeals. The building contract was predicated on certain drawings and specifications prepared by defendant’s architect, Harry Baker Smith, and the contractor completed the job on April 15, 1954. It was found that certain corrective work was necessary, which was done, and on August 9, 1954, the architect certified that the job had been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the contract. Now, three years later, defendant claims that the work is defective and incomplete in certain details. His architect, deArmas, examined the structure and the plans and specifications during March 1957, and testified that certain defects existed, all of which we consider minor in scope when compared with the whole job. We are convinced that the contractor substantially complied with its building contract, and defendant has not the legal right to withhold the balance due on the contract price. Defendant has made no showing by any sort of evidence the monetary amount of the defects in the contractor’s work, if any, or the amount of damages he has suffered by reason of the contractor’s failure to perform the contract in a manner consistent with the specifications. Under the well-settled jurisprudence prevailing in this state, where there has been a substantial compliance with the contract, a contractor may recover the value of the work done by him if a price has been agreed upon even though the work be unfinished or defective, and the sole remedy of the owner is to make a reduction of the contract price by an amount sufficient to perfect or complete the work according to the contract which he claimed was breached. Spicuzza v. Ranzino, La.App., 73 So.2d 208 ; Brandin Slate Co. v. Bannister, La.App., 30 So.2d 877 ; Merrill v. Harang, La.App., 198 So. 386 ; Reimann Const. Co. v. Upton, La.App., 178 So. 528 ; Peterson v. Peralta, 3 La.App. 516 . There was some testimony regarding the condemnation of the building by the City of New Orleans and also about a criminal charge having been lodged against defendant for breach of the Building Code, but we do not think that we are concerned with these matters. We find no error in the judgment appealed from and it is affirmed. Affirmed.