Lapoint v. Dumont Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45-68,45-68 |
| Parties | Floyd E. LAPOINT and Ora M. Lapoint v. DUMONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Mikell & Stuart, Burlington, for plaintiffs.
Latham & Eastman, Burlington, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
This suit was brought by the plaintiffs, returnable before the Chittenden District Court, alleging a breach of a building contract on the part of the defendant. All allegations contained in the writ were formally denied by the defendant. The case was heard by the court. Findings of fact were made and filed. A Judgment Order followed adjudging the defendant not liable to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed to this court for review.
The findings reveal that on or about March 5, 1962, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written agreement whereby the defendant agreed to construct for the plaintiffs a house on Lot No. 117 Laurel Hill Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. The contract included a provision that all construction was to be equal to or exceed FHA and VA regulations. At the time of the construction VA regulations required the connection of the house sewer line to a public sewer line, if feasible.
In connection with the executiion of the contract the defendant obtained from the Town of South Burlington a permit for the construction of the house and obtained from the Town Fire District a permit for the installation of a connector line from the house to the public sewer line owned by the Town Fire District. Plaintiffs paid the fee for the permit.
At the time of the construction of plaintiffs' house, and by reason of procedure and policies adopted by the Town Fire District, all sewer connections, including plaintiffs', were installed by the contractor of the Town Fire District, Arthur J. Rock, Jr., d/b/a Modern Septic Tank Service.
The cost for labor and materials in connection with the installation of the connector sewer line to plaintiffs' house, plus 10% for profit, was billed to the Town Fire District by the Modern Septic Tank Service and subsequently paid by the defendant.
Beginning in 1963 plaintiffs had difficulty with plumbing backups. At the request of the plaintiffs their sewer line leading to the street was augered by the Modern Septic Tank Service. Further backups continued yearly up to and including 1967. Finally, in 1967 plaintiffs employed the Giroux Septic Tank Service which dug up and reinstalled plaintiffs' sewer line at a cost to the plaintiffs of $582.00.
When the line was dug up in 1967 it appeared to be cracked, and a portion of the sewer line sloped toward the house instead of away from it. The court further found that the adverse slope of the sewer line occurred, or was caused, at the time of its original installation.
The trial court found that at no time did the defendant exercise any control over or supervise in any way the construction of the initial sewer installation. Undoubtedly with this in mind the court concluded its findings by stating that it was 'unable to find that any alleged defect in the sewer line was caused or contributed to in any way by any act or neglect of the defendant.' In so doing the court overlooked the defendant's contractual obligations.
In the obligation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Montagne
...Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. Coronet Priscilla Ice Cream Corp., 921 F.Supp. 1206, 1212 (D.Vt.1996) (quoting Lapoint v. Dumont Const. Co., 128 Vt. 8, 10, 258 A.2d 570 (1969)). "To prove breach of contract, plaintiff must show damages. Two types of damages are recoverable: direct damages t......
-
In Re Michael F. Montagne, Bankruptcy No. 08-10916.
...” Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. Coronet Priscilla Ice Cream Corp., 921 F.Supp. 1206, 1212 (D.Vt.1996) (quoting Lapoint v. Dumont Const. Co., 128 Vt. 8, 10, 258 A.2d 570 (1969)). “The existence of sufficient consideration for a contract is a question of law and is evaluated at the time the......
-
Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. v. CORONET PRISCILLA ICE CR.
...by a party to a contract is found his duty, and his failure to comply with the duty constitutes a breach." Lapoint v. Dumont Const. Co., 128 Vt. 8, 10, 258 A.2d 570 (1969).11 Inherent in this definition is that to have a breach, there must be a contract. Whether the parties entered into a c......
-
South Burlington School Dist. v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc.
...negligent supervision claim, the duty owed by CFZ to the plaintiff was set out in their contract. See Lapoint v. Dumont Construction Co., 128 Vt. 8, 10, 258 A.2d 570, 571 (1969). Their agreement provided as The Architect shall make periodic visits to the site to familiarize himself generall......