Carriger v. Ballenger
| Decision Date | 02 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-355,80-355 |
| Citation | 628 P.2d 1106,38 St.Rep. 864,192 Mont. 479 |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | John CARRIGER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glen BALLENGER and Bill Clark, Defendants and Appellants. |
Daniel R. Sweeney, Butte, for defendants and appellants.
Burgess, Joyce & Whelan, Butte, for plaintiff and respondent.
On January 24, 1979, John Carriger filed a complaint in the Second Judicial District Court alleging breach of contract and damages due to the alleged failure of appellants Ballenger and Clark to complete the construction work according to the contract terms. The appellants counterclaimed for breach of contract and damages as a result of alleged conduct of respondent preventing their performance. Trial was held on April 3, 1980, before the court without a jury. The trial court's findings and conclusions were entered on April 30, 1980. Judgment was entered in favor of respondent Carriger in the amount of $1,200, plus interest. From the denial of their motion to amend the findings and conclusions or in the alternative for a rehearing, Ballenger and Clark appeal.
John Carriger owns a home in Butte, Montana. Prior to August, 1978, there was no basement in the home and the heating consisted of wall heaters. Carriger thought the heating system was dangerous and should be replaced, but in order to do so it was necessary to have a basement constructed.
The appellants, under the name of B & B Landscaping, were engaged in the business of installing lawns and doing excavation and construction work. Creighton Walsh, Jr., who is now married to Carriger's daughter, was employed as a parttime laborer by the appellants.
Carriger, through Walsh, obtained a written bid from the appellants on the cost of excavating and installing a finished basement under his house with a cement floor and pumice block walls. The written bid was broken down into three components as follows:
Excavation $1,200
Pumice block walls $3,800
Floor $2,000
The total cost was $7,000. On July 20, Carriger took the estimate to a bank and obtained a $8,527 loan for the construction and the heating system.
There was conflicting testimony with regard to the final agreement of the parties and the sequence of events. Carriger testified that he told Walsh to tell appellants to start work. Carriger and Walsh both testified that work began on August 1. Carriger testified that on August 4 the appellants came to him and requested a downpayment of either one-third of the excavation work or one-third of the entire contract. Carriger stated he asked them if they could get the work done by August 31 and when they both agreed to do so he gave them a check for $2,400. Walsh testified he was present on August 4 and witnessed the agreement on the completion date. Ballenger and Clark denied that they agreed to complete the work by August 31 but said they agreed to do it before winter. Clark testified that work had not started before they received the check, but that they began one or two days after August 4.
The trial court found that the respondent accepted the bid on August 4, 1978 on the condition that the work was to be completed by August 31, 1978.
Due to delays the excavation work was not completed until August 31, and the work on the floor and walls had not yet begun. Upon Carriger's inquiry, the appellants advised him that they could not do the remaining work themselves. They sent York, a masonry and concrete contractor, to the premises. Carriger was most anxious to have the job completed because of the risk of freezing water pipes. Apparently York would not give Carriger priority unless he was hired directly instead of on a subcontract basis. According to Carriger, Ballenger agreed to this arrangement and agreed to refund $1,200 of the downpayment. Ballenger testified that York was to be a subcontractor, that he never gave permission to Carriger to hire York directly, and that he had not agreed to return $1,200. York completed the work on September 22, 1978, with Carriger and Walsh doing the hod carrying and backfilling work. At that time Walsh was no longer employed by B & B.
Carriger demanded the return of $1,200 from the appellants, but appellants refused to return it. The matter was heard on April 3, 1980, and the trial court entered its findings and conclusions on April 30, 1980. The court found that Carriger accepted appellants' bid on the condition that they finish the entire job on August 31, 1978, and that the appellants breached the contract by failing to complete the work by that date or at all. The trial court awarded damages to respondent in the amount of $1,200, plus interest at the legal rate from August 31, 1978, and costs.
Appellants raise the following issues:
(1) Did the written bid constitute a written contract?
(2) Did the parol evidence rule bar admission of testimony regarding an oral agreement as to the completion date?
(3) Did the trial court err in failing to find that the respondent partially rescinded the contract and that appellants were entitled to the reasonable value of their work in the amount of $2,400?
(4) Did the trial court err in finding respondent suffered damages in the amount of $1,200?
(5) Did the trial court err in awarding interest from the date of breach rather than from the date of judgment?
Appellants' first argument is based upon the premise that their written bid constituted a contract. From that premise, appellants argue that the parol evidence rule bars testimony concerning a completion date not contained in the writing, and that time is not of the essence unless expressly provided in the writing.
Appellants' basic premise is not consistent with contract law. Their reliance on Higby v. Hooper (1950), 124 Mont. 331, 221 P.2d 1043, is misplaced. In that case the construction contractor was seeking to recover his costs in excess of the contract price of $8,300. The contractor had written a letter certifying to the U.S. Government that the cost would not exceed $8,300, for the purpose of facilitating the buyer's V.A. loan. The letter was held to be the contractor's statement that he had contracted with the buyer and he was estopped to deny it.
A written bid has consistently been construed as nothing more than an offer to perform labor or supply materials, and the offer does not ripen into a contract until accepted by the offeree. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Clark County (1978), 94 Nev. 116, 575 P.2d 1332; Clover Park School District No. 400 v. Consolidated Dairy Products Co. (1976), 15 Wash.App. 429, 550 P.2d 47; Savoca Masonry Co., Inc. v. Homes & Son Constr. Co., Inc. (1975), 112 Ariz. 392, 542 P.2d 817; O. C. Kinney, Inc. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc. (1963), 151 Colo. 571, 379 P.2d 628. The trial court found that Carriger accepted the bid on August 4, 1978, upon the condition that the work be completed by August 31, 1978. According to Montana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Simmental Ass'n v. Coregis Ins. Co.
...and amount of damages due upon breach were not clearly ascertainable until determined by trial court); Carriger v. Ballenger, 192 Mont. 479, 486, 628 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1981) (award of prejudgment interest pursuant to section 27-1-211 erroneous when damages for breach of construction contract......
-
Elkins Manor Associates v. Eleanor Concrete Works, Inc.
...Siegel v. Banker, 486 A.2d 1163 (D.C.App.1984); Phillips v. Green St. Corp., 143 Ind.App. 30, 237 N.E.2d 590 (1968); Carriger v. Ballenger, 628 P.2d 1106 (Mont.1981); Western Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Reeves County Land Co., 233 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.App.1950). See generally 17A C.J.S. Contracts § ......
-
Billings Clinic v. Peat Marwick Main & Co.
...of being made certain by calculation." Peat Marwick contends that this Court interprets that language narrowly, Carriger v. Ballenger (Mont.1981), 628 P.2d 1106, 1110, and that pre-judgment interest is routinely denied when there is In reply, the Clinic states that the Peat Marwick argument......
-
Warrington v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP
...288, 967 P.2d 787 ; Ellingson Agency, Inc. v. Baltrusch , 228 Mont. 360, 368, 742 P.2d 1009, 1014 (1987) ; Carriger v. Ballenger , 192 Mont. 479, 485-86, 628 P.2d 1106, 1109-10 (1981).3 Rather than matters of discretionary award, prejudgment and post-judgment interest are matters of right u......