Bachman v. Fortuna

• Decision Date: 25 March 1958
• Citation: 145 Conn. 191,141 A.2d 477
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: S. K. BACHMAN et al. v. John FORTUNA et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 477

141 A.2d 477

145 Conn. 191

S. K. BACHMAN et al. v. John FORTUNA et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 25, 1958.

Philip H. Smith, Bridgeport, with whom was Bruce E. Dillingham, Bridgeport, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

George Koenig, Bridgeport, for the appellee (named defendant).

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

This action was instituted by seven plaintiffs, as joint and severed promisees, upon an alleged promise of the defendants to prepare and improve a street upon which the plaintiffs had purchased building lots. Five of the plaintiffs withdrew, and the two remaining plaintiffs, Bachman and Sweetser, proceeded to trial upon an amended complaint. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of these plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, to recover nominal damages from the defendant John Fortuna, only. The plaintiffs have appealed.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The plaintiffs bought building lots from John Fortuna, hereinafter called the defendant, upon an undeveloped street in a residential building development owned and promoted by him. As part of the consideration for the purchase of the lots, the defendant agreed to put the street in condition for acceptance by the town of Westport. The trial court found that he failed to do as he had agreed, and the defendant has not challenged this finding. The trial was complicated by the proof of facts to the effect that other lot owners in the development, who had a direct interest in the performance of the defendant's promise to the plaintiffs but who could not establish a like promise to themselves, joined with the plaintiffs in raising funds to improve part of the street, and that the plaintiffs, in addition to advancing some funds of their own, obligated themselves by borrowing money from another interested person in order to pay for putting the street into a condition acceptable to the town, as the defendant had agreed to do. The loans to the plaintiffs were to be repaid only if they recovered from the defenant. The cost of putting the street into an acceptable condition was $3950, but the trial court did not find that this was the reasonable cost of doing the work. No evidence was offered to show the depreciated value of the plaintiffs' properties by reason of the defendant's breach. The trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover as damages the difference between the value of their properties with performance of the defendant's agreement and the value without performance; but as no evidence on this difference had been offered, the court awarded only nominal damages of $50 to each plaintiff.

The court was in error in holding that proof of the plaintiffs' damages could only be shown by the value rule. It followed the rule said down in Coughlin v. Blair, 41 Cal.2d 587, 600, 262 P.2d 305, which held that the damages are to be measured by the value rule when the improvements are to be made upon another's property, though the reasonable cost rule applies where the improvements are to be made on one's own property. We see no reason for any such artificial distinction. Our rule is stated in Lee v. Harris, 85 Conn. 212, 214, 82 A. 186, in which we said: 'The general rule regarding breaches of contract, whether relating to real, or personal estate, is that the injured party shall recover that compensation which will leave him as well off as he would have been had the contract been fully performed. * * * There is no unbending rule as to the evidence by which such compensation is to be determined. In some cases the sum which will furnish such compensation may properly be...