Bettis v. Comfort Control, Inc., 42240
| Decision Date | 27 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42240,42240,3 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 678,115 Ga.App. 104 |
| Parties | Charles M. BETTIS et al. v. COMFORT CONTROL, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Candler, Cox, McClain & Andrews, E. Lewis Hansen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Edenfield, Heyman & Sizemore, W. Dan Greer, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Comfort Control, Inc., a subcontractor brought this suit against Charles Bettis and Wade Palmes, general contractors, to recover a balance due plaintiff under an agreement by which plaintiff undertook to furnish and install a heating and air conditioning system in a building constructed by defendants. Defendants pleaded failure of consideration, and sought to recoup amounts expended by defendants to correct defects in the system inherent in the installation plans. The evidence did not show that defendants furnished plaintiff with plans for the installation, nor did the evidence show that plaintiff unilaterally originated the design of the system. The evidence showed without dispute that plaintiff and defendants mutually agreed upon certain plans and specifications and that the installation was performed in accordance with the agreement. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the amount sued for, and defendant appealed to this court on the ground that the verdict and judgment were not authorized by the evidence. Held:
Where a construction contract provides that work shall be performed in accordance with certain details and specifications, mutually agreed upon, and the work is done in compliance with the terms of the agreement, the employer cannot recover (or recoup) upon the construction contract for results which flow from the performance of the work in the prescribed manner. Board of Drainage Comm'rs of Kettle Creek Dist. v. Williams, 34 Ga.App. 731, 735, 131 S.E. 911; see also Porter v. Wilder & Son, 62 Ga. 520, 525; Cannon v. Hunt, 116 Ga. 452, 454, 42 S.E. 734.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sasser & Co. v. Griffin, s. 49659
...93 S.E.2d 392. This same rule applies to actions ex contractu, between contractor and subcontractor, see, e.g., Bettis v. Comfort Control, Inc., 115 Ga.App. 104, 153 S.E.2d 678, and for damages alleged to have been caused by delay in completion of construction. See, e.g., Blount v. Kickligh......
-
Carrier Corp. v. Rollins
...v. McCown, 237 Ga.App. 355, 357(2)(b), 514 S.E.2d 691 (1999). 18. (Citations omitted.) Id. 19.165 Ga.App. 169, 170(3), 299 S.E.2d 123 (1983). 20.Bettis v. Comfort Control, Inc., 115 Ga.App. 104, 153 S.E.2d 678 (1967); Bd. of Drainage Commrs., etc. v. Williams, 34 Ga.App. 731, 735, 131 S.E. ......
-
Keller Industries, Inc. v. Summers Roofing Co., Inc.
...Lewis' second and third requests to charge. See Kent v. Hunt & Assoc., 165 Ga.App. 169, 170(3), 299 S.E.2d 123; Bettis v. Comfort Control, 115 Ga.App. 104, 153 S.E.2d 678. The third enumeration of error is without 3. The trial court did not err in refusing to grant Keller a new trial on the......
-
Kent v. Hunt & Associates, Inc.
...he is not to be accountable for unsatisfactory results." Such a charge is a correct statement of the law. Bettis v. Comfort Control, Inc., 115 Ga.App. 104, 105, 153 S.E.2d 678 (1967). Furthermore, there is evidence that, although there were defects in the building, appellee complied with th......