Asay v. Rappleye, 15808
| Decision Date | 15 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 15808,15808 |
| Parties | E. J. ASAY d/b/a E. J. Asay, General Contractor, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Rulon RAPPLEYE, Blanche Madsen Rappleye, his wife, Richard J. Bowen and Theon J. Bowen, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Boyd M. Fullmer of Fullmer & Harding, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Don Blackham of Blackham & Boley, Granger, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiff E. J. Asay, a licensed general contractor, brought suit to recover money allegedly owed for renovation and construction work on the kitchen of a house at 1577 South 500 East in Salt Lake City, owned by defendants Rappleye. Defendants answered denying the indebtedness, and counterclaimed for damages alleging that the work had not been done properly and in a reasonable amount of time. At a trial to a jury, after the plaintiff had rested, the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the plaintiff's evidence did not make a sufficient case for consideration by the jury. From the granting of that motion plaintiff appeals.
On September 23, 1974, the parties entered into a written agreement by which plaintiff was to do renovation and construction work on defendants' kitchen. The basic contract recited that the work would be done for $3,240; and there was later interlined an addition of $70, making a total of $3,310 which was "to be paid upon the completion of the work."
Plaintiff, his son, and another helper, worked on the house during October, November and early December of 1974. An electrical contractor hired by the plaintiff, performed wiring work that was not included in the contract specifications. In December 1974, the defendants filed a complaint with the Utah State Department of Contractors alleging some portions of the work had not been done properly. The Department inspected the house, conducted a hearing, and made the recommendation that certain parts of the work ought to be re-done. Plaintiff testified that if this were done, it would involve about $450 in labor and materials.
Plaintiff said that when he came to do this work the key by which he got in the house was gone, and that thus he had been "locked out." We observe that this impresses us as somewhat of a feeble excuse by the plaintiff, because it does not appear that he made any further effort, and no further work was done on the project. Nevertheless, we decide as we do herein because of what is recited below.
Defendants assert that the plaintiff failed to show that the job as contracted for was ever completed. However, as opposed to that contention, both plaintiff and his son testified that in their opinion the job was so completed. Plaintiff also testified to the following exchange with Mrs. Rappleye the time he did the final work on the house:
A. Well, I asked her if she was happy with the work and if I could collect for it.
Q. And was there a reply to that?
A. She indicated that she was willing to pay the bill, and she indicated that she was happy with the work....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cerritos Trucking Co. v. Utah Venture No. 1, 17185
...court in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is directed. Kim v. Anderson, Utah, 610 P.2d 1270 (1980); Asay v. Rappleye, Utah, 593 P.2d 132 (1979). The case should not be taken from the jury by the granting of the motion where there is any substantial dispute in the eviden......
-
Management Committee of Graystone Pines Homeowners Ass'n on Behalf of Owners of Condominiums v. Graystone Pines, Inc., 17421
...142 (1967).3 Little America Refining Co. v. Leyba, Utah, 641 P.2d 112 (1982); Kim v. Anderson, Utah, 610 P.2d 1270 (1980); Asay v. Rappleye, Utah, 593 P.2d 132 (1979).4 Pursuant to the provisions of U.C.A., 1953, 57-8-33.5 Plaintiff's contract claim was dismissed during trial and no content......
-
Kimball v. Campbell
...respect to the timeliness and order of the parties' performance. Both of these issues raised questions of fact. See Asay v. Rappeleye, Utah, 593 P.2d 132, 133 (1979). Because of this ambiguity, parol evidence that explained the parties' intent and did not contradict the terms of the written......