Hood v. Faulkner
| Decision Date | 15 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 794DC1115,794DC1115 |
| Citation | 47 N.C.App. 611,267 S.E.2d 704 |
| Parties | F. H. HOOD t/a Hood Construction Company v. Samuel A. FAULKNER et ux., Dolly Ruth Faulkner. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Gaylor & Edwards by Jimmy F. Gaylor, Jacksonville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Turner & Harrison by Fred W. Harrison, Kinston, for defendant-appellant.
Initially, defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict. He argues that there was no "proper evidence" from which the jury could determine damages since there was no evidence as to the value of the services rendered by plaintiff other than his bill. We disagree that the mere paucity of evidence as to the value of plaintiff's services in connection with the extra work performed entitles the defendant to a directed verdict. Plaintiff established the existence of a contract whereby defendant was to pay him for extra work or additional materials required to be undertaken or supplied in building defendant's house. Plaintiff offered plenary evidence of the nature and extent of additional work and services rendered. Defendant accepted the services, but has refused to pay for all the additional work performed. "The law implies a promise to pay for services rendered by one party to another where the recipient knowingly and voluntarily accepts the services and there is no showing that the services were gratuitously given." Harrell v. W. B. Lloyd Construction Co., 41 N.C.App. 593, 595, 255 S.E.2d 280, 281 (1979). See also Johnson v. Sanders, 260 N.C. 291, 132 S.E.2d 582 (1963). In such a case, plaintiff is entitled at least to nominal damages. Bryan Builders Supply v. Midyette, 274 N.C. 264, 162 S.E.2d 507 (1968); Gales v. Smith, 249 N.C. 263, 106 S.E.2d 164 (1958). Thus, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. See Harrell v. W. B. Lloyd Construction Co., supra; Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. David G. Allen Co., Inc., 22 N.C.App. 442, 206 S.E.2d 750 (1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1055, 96 S.Ct. 786, 46 L.Ed.2d 644 (1976).
However, error in the charge requires that we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the matter for a new trial. It is uncontradicted that the written agreement between these parties failed to address the question of how much the plaintiff would be paid for extra work he performed or additional services he rendered in the construction of defendant's house. Neither does the evidence support even an inference that the parties ever agreed otherwise as to the amount of compensation plaintiff would receive. Plaintiff's action, then, clearly sounds in quantum meruit and is based on the promise to pay which the law implies. The proper measure of plaintiff's recovery in such a case is the reasonable value of the services rendered to and accepted by the defendant. "(W)hen there is no agreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid for services, the person performing them is entitled to recover what they are reasonably worth, based on the time and labor expended, skill, knowledge and experience involved, and other attendant circumstances, . . . ." Turner v. Marsh Furniture Co., 217 N.C 695, 697, 9 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1940). See also Austin v. Raines, 45 N.C.App. 709, 264 S.E.2d 121 (1980). See generally, 5 A. Corbin, Contracts § 1112 (1964); 66 Am.Jur.2d, Restitution and Implied Contracts §§ 24, 28 (1973).
With respect to the issue of damages in the case before us, the judge charged as follows:
A party injured by a breach of contract is entitled to be placed insofar as this can be done by money in the same position he would have occupied if the contract had been performed. The party injured by the breach is entitled to recover for gains prevented as well as losses sustained because of the breach. Now the plaintiff contends of course that he has been damaged in the amount of $2,437.54, that's the value of his services and materials that he has indicated that were expended on behalf of the defendant for services requested and materials provided.
So I finally instruct you on this issue that if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that F. H. Hood has sustained some amount of damages under the rule that I have explained to you, and if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Charlotte–mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. Talford
...figure is clearly inadequate.Paxton v. O.P.F., Inc., 64 N.C.App. 130, 134, 306 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1983); see also Hood v. Faulkner, 47 N.C.App. 611, 617, 267 S.E.2d 704 (1980) (citation omitted) (“Nor is the plaintiff's opinion that the amount of his bill is reasonable sufficient to sustain a......
-
Dowless v. Warren-Rupp Houdailles, Inc.
...Subsequent North Carolina decisions persuade us, however, that the rule of Turner applies here. For example, in Hood v. Faulkner, 47 N.C.App. 611, 267 S.E.2d 704 (1980), the parties entered into a building contract that named the price for the basic work and provided that additional labor a......
-
Charlotte–Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. Talford
...(citations omitted). But while a party's bill for services may be some evidence of the value of the work performed, Hood v. Faulkner, 47 N.C.App. 611, 617, 267 S.E.2d 704, 707 (1980) (citations omitted), a ledger sheet showing the amount an individual wants to be paid for a service the prov......
-
Environmental Landscape Design Specialist v. Shields
...standing alone, is insufficient to support an award of damages, it is some evidence of the value of one's services. Hood v. Faulkner, 47 N.C.App. 611, 267 S.E.2d 704 (1980). Moreover, the reasonable value of services rendered is determined largely by the nature of the work and the customary......