Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialtestimonyconsumer protection
contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagestrialtestimonyconsumer protection

Related Cases

Lewis River Golf, Inc. v. O.M. Scott & Sons, 120 Wash.2d 712, 845 P.2d 987, 22 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 510
View Case »
Whewell v. Dobson, 227 N.W.2d 115, 16 UCC Rep.Serv. 710
View Case »
State ex rel. Doran v. Preble Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 995 N.E.2d 239, 2013-Ohio-3579
View Case »
Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828, 412 S.E.2d 826
View Case »
Long Island Airports Limousine Service Corp. v. Northwest Airlines, 124 A.D.2d 711, 508 N.Y.S.2d 223
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eastlake Const. Co., Inc. v. Hess, 33 Wash.App. 378, 655 P.2d 1160

Facts

The defendants, Hess, contracted with the plaintiff, Eastlake, for the construction of a 5-unit apartment building for $118,600. Construction began in June 1977 but was not completed on schedule, and Hess found that some work and materials were below specification. Eastlake abandoned the project, claimed substantial completion, and sought the balance owed, while Hess counterclaimed for breach of contract and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

The defendants (Hess) contracted with the plaintiff (Eastlake) for the construction of a 5-unit apartment building. Under the contract, Eastlake agreed to complete the building for $118,600, according to the plans and specifications drawn by the architect. Construction began in June 1977. The building was not completed on schedule, and Hess found some of the work and materials to be below specification.

Issue

1) Was Hess entitled to enforce the contract and sue in his own name despite the sale of condominium units? 2) Was the testimony regarding fair rental value admissible? 3) Did the trial court err in its damage calculations regarding the kitchen cabinets and unauthorized substitutions? 4) Was the dismissal of the Consumer Protection Act claim appropriate?

1) Was Hess entitled to enforce the contract and sue in his own name despite the sale of condominium units? 2) Was the testimony regarding fair rental value admissible? 3) Did the trial court err in its damage calculations regarding the kitchen cabinets and unauthorized substitutions? 4) Was the dismissal of the Consumer Protection Act claim appropriate?

Rule

As a party to the contract, Hess was entitled to enforce it and sue in his name. Testimony regarding fair rental value is admissible under the rule relating to opinion testimony by lay witnesses. The cost to remedy defects is recoverable if not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value.

As a party to the contract, Hess is entitled to enforce it and to sue in his name.

Analysis

The court found that Hess, as a party to the contract, had the right to enforce it despite the sale of condominium units. The testimony regarding fair rental value was deemed admissible, and the court determined that the cost of bringing the kitchen cabinets up to specification was not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value. The trial court's failure to award damages for unauthorized substitutions was also deemed an error.

The court found that Hess, as a party to the contract, had the right to enforce it despite the sale of condominium units. The testimony regarding fair rental value was deemed admissible, and the court determined that the cost of bringing the kitchen cabinets up to specification was not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value.

Conclusion

The court remanded the case to increase Hess's judgment by $7,760 for the kitchen cabinets and $9,933.85 for unauthorized substitutions, while affirming the trial court's other decisions.

The action is remanded to the trial court to increase the judgment in Hess' favor by $7,760 for the kitchen cabinets and $9,933.85 for the unauthorized substitutions of inferior materials, as indicated.

Who won?

Hess prevailed in the case because the court found that he was entitled to damages for the breach of contract and that the trial court had erred in its calculations regarding the kitchen cabinets and unauthorized substitutions.

Hess prevailed in the case because the court found that he was entitled to damages for the breach of contract and that the trial court had erred in its calculations regarding the kitchen cabinets and unauthorized substitutions.

You must be