Alabama Pool & Const. Co., Inc. v. Rickard
| Decision Date | 28 July 1982 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 149 |
| Parties | ALABAMA POOL & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Steve RICKARD. Civ. 3184. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
L. H. Little, Jr., of Berry, Ables, Tatum, Little & Baxter, Huntsville, for appellant.
Donald R. Simms, Jr., of Watson & Moore, Huntsville, for appellee.
This is a breach of contract case.
Plaintiff-appellant, Alabama Pool & Construction Company, appeals from a judgment against it on its claim and in favor of defendant-appellee, Steve Rickard, on his counterclaim.
Appellant filed a complaint against appellee in the Circuit Court of Madison County alleging that appellee had breached a contract for the construction of a swimming pool by failing to pay the full price as agreed upon in the contract. An outstanding balance of $2,950 remained on the contract price and the appellant sought to recover this amount as damages. 1
The appellee filed an answer and a counterclaim wherein he denied that he had breached the contract and asserted that the appellant had breached the contract by failing to perform the specified work in a good and workmanlike manner and by failing to conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, building codes and health regulations in the construction of the pool. The appellee further asserted that the appellant had breached the express and implied warranties that the pool was fit for the particular purpose for which it was installed.
On November 4, 1981, the foregoing claims and counterclaims were presented to a jury. After due consideration the jury returned a verdict against the appellant on its claim and in favor of the appellee on his counterclaim. The jury awarded the appellee $3,000 as damages.
Subsequent to the verdict the appellant filed a motion for a new trial. Appellant's motion was denied and this appeal followed.
Briefly, the pertinent facts of this case are as follows: Appellee entered into a contract with appellant for the construction of a swimming pool at appellee's residence. By the end of May, 1981, the pool had been completed to the extent that water was put in the pool and the appellee and his family began to swim in the pool. Subsequent to this time, however, certain problems became apparent. Among the problems were wrinkles in the pool liner, discolored concrete walkways, chipped and rough concrete decking, a dented ladder and misaligned coping. Additionally, there was evidence that appellant had not complied with city ordinances regarding the installation of the pool's electrical system.
The total price for construction of the pool as provided in the contract was $8,950. At the time of trial appellee had paid $6,000 toward the contract price. After the foregoing problems developed, the appellee refused to make any additional payments. Appellant then instituted this action seeking to recover the balance of the contract price.
The sole issue presented for review is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict awarding the appellee $3,000 on his counterclaim. Though, as indicated above, there is ample evidence that appellant breached the pool construction contract, a careful review of the record has failed to reveal any evidence that would warrant a finding that the appellee had suffered any compensable damage due to the breach. Because there is no evidence that the appellee was damaged, as damages are determined under Alabama law, this court must reverse the verdict awarding damages. Specifically, the trial court erred in not granting appellant's motion for a new trial due to a lack of evidence to support the jury's verdict.
As this court is aware, and as counsel for appellee ably pointed out, many jurisdictions would apply a "cost of repairs" measure of damages in cases involving defective installation or construction of swimming pools. See generally 13 Am.Jur.2d, Building and Construction Contracts §§ 76-86 (1964). This court, in accordance with previous supreme court cases, has recently held, however, that the "diminished value" measure of damages is applicable to cases involving breach of a pool...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pritchett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...(diminished value is the difference between the value of the property before and after the damage); Alabama Pool & Constr. Co. v. Rickard, 418 So.2d 149, 151 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (the "diminished value" measure of damages is the difference in the property's market value before and after the a......
-
Shewmake v. Delgreco
...work as warranted. Shewmake cited McLendon Pools, Inc. v. Bush, 414 So.2d 92 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), and Alabama Pool & Construction Co. v. Rickard, 418 So.2d 149 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), in support of this argument. Shewmake also argued that the trial court erred in awarding the DelGrecos the $96,4......
-
Rose v. Davis
...of the pond in its condition at the time the plaintiff received it and according to the contract. Cf. Alabama Pool & Constr. Co. Inc., v. Rickard, 418 So.2d 149 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (breach of contract for construction of swimming pool); McLendon Pools, Inc. v. Bush, 414 So.2d 92 (Ala.Civ.App......
-
Joiner v. Holland & Woodard Co., Inc.
...between the value of the parking lot as constructed and the value of the parking lot as contracted. Alabama Pool & Construction Co. v. Rickard, 418 So.2d 149 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). It is well settled that damages in a breach of contract case do not have to be measured with mathematical precisi......