Guidry v. Krewes Den, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 19, 1966 193 So. 2d 848; La., November 15, 1879 31 La. 770; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., March 7, 1979 368 So. 2d 1139
Guidry v. Krewes Den, Inc., 313 So. 2d 910 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975).
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge. In dismissing both petition for liquidated damages and reconvention for breach of contract, the trial court presumably accepted defendant’s evidence that plaintiff’s burglar-protection services became so inadequate that defendant suffered the damage of having to station an employee in the building to protect it. This evidence justified both refusal of liquidated damages and —on a theory of extinction by judicial compensation by defendant’s damage claim 1 — refusal of the perhaps $60 more *911 that plaintiff might otherwise have claimed as a pro-rata payment for the period of relatively acceptable service. Plaintiff alone appealed. The judgment dismissing the petition is reasonably supported by the evidence. Affirmed. . See Aubry & Rau, Obligations (La.Law Inst, trans.) § 325: “The judicial compensation may arise from a reconventional demand made by the party whose credit does not yet meet all the requisite conditions for a legal compensation.” See also La.C.C. art. 2208.