Bottini v. Addonizio
| Decision Date | 30 November 1927 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | ELENA BOTTINI & another v. JOSEPHINE ADDONIZIO. |
November 28, 1927.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., CROSBY CARROLL, WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Contract Performance and breach, Building contract.
If, at the hearing in a municipal court of an action upon a contract in writing providing for the sale by the plaintiff and the purchase by the defendant of certain land and buildings and that the plaintiff first should erect on the land a garage, all "work and material to be satisfactory to the inspectors and to the buyer," the defendant asked for a ruling, in substance, respecting a deduction from damages to be assessed in favor of the plaintiff of the amount of the difference between the value of the property as it should have been if the contract had been performed and as it was as a result of the plaintiff's not having performed the contract "in a manner which would have been reasonably satisfactory"; and the judge found that the plaintiff performed all the work required by the terms of the contract in a workmanlike manner, and found generally for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, it was proper for the judge to refuse the ruling requested as not applicable in view of the findings of fact made, since it was evident that the judge never reached, nor properly could reach consideration of the question of damage done to the defendant.
CONTRACT upon a contract in writing by which the plaintiffs were to sell and the defendant was to purchase certain land and buildings thereon. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated October 20, 1926.
Provisions of the contract were that the plaintiff was to The contract price was $14,500, of which sum all had been paid excepting the final payment of $1,500, which the defendant refused to pay because of the alleged fact that the garage had not been built in accordance with the requirements of the contract.
Material evidence rulings requested by the defendant at the trial in the Municipal Court, and facts found by the judge are stated in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Carlos Ruggles Lumber Co. v. Commonwealth
- Carlos Ruggles Lumber Co. v. Commonwealth
-
Atma v. Munoz.
...that performance be to the satisfaction of any reasonable man, MacDonald v. Kavanaugh, 259 Mass. 439, 156 N.E. 740; Bottini v. Addonizio, 261 Mass. 456, 158 N.E. 846; Duffy Bros. v. Bing & Bing, 217 App. Div. 10, 215 N.Y.S. 755; Patry v. Berick, 50 R.I. 345, 147 A. 877. High authority has s......
-
Melville Shoe Corp. v. Kozminsky
...it was not the intention of the parties that the plaintiff's lessor should acquire any rights in the passageway. Bottini v. Addonizio, 261 Mass. 456, 457, 158 N. E. 846. We find nothing in the authorities cited by the plaintiff inconsistent with what is here decided. Decree affirmed with ...