Lockhart v. Worsham, BL-414
| Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BL-414,BL-414 |
| Citation | 508 So.2d 411,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1181 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1181 Eloise LOCKHART, Appellant, v. Ronald WORSHAM, d/b/a Worsham Construction Company, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John S. Duss, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Patrick A. Carr, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment entered in a suit to recover the balance allegedly due on a contract and a counterclaim for damages due to breaches of the agreement. The trial court awarded the contractor $1,500, finding in pertinent part:
The plaintiff [contractor] attempted in good faith to correct items complained of by the defendant [Ms. Lockhart]. The plaintiff [contractor] did not willfully or intentionally breach the terms of the parties' agreement.
There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the contractor breached the contract; however, we must reverse the final judgment because the trial court imposed the wrong remedy and awarded only minimal damages ($65.00) to the homeowner based on its finding that the breach was not willful or intentional.
The record reflects that the parties entered into a written contract providing, in part, that the contractor would remodel the kitchen and porch, and install a new insulated built-up roof on the home. The total price for the work was to be $18,525.
The homeowner paid all except $1,500, 1 which she refused to pay because the work was not in compliance with the agreement and was unsatisfactory. Specifically at issue are the kitchen cabinets and the roof. The contract required cabinets to be 24 inches deep to accommodate the dishwasher in the kitchen. The contractor claims the cabinets were 24 inches deep; Ms. Lockhart claimed the cabinets measured 23 and one-half inches deep. Photographic exhibits of record reveal the depth of the cabinets caused the 24-inch-deep dishwasher to protrude, but the court only awarded $15 to cover the cost of cutting a piece out of a drawer to allow it to open despite the protruding dishwasher. The homeowner was entitled to a kitchen counter with the appliances flush as bargained for, and to the drawers functioning without cut-outs caused by the contractor's failure to comply with specifications.
The contract called for an insulated five-ply roof, but the contractor installed a three-ply roof with no insulation board. There was no finding of waiver. The allowance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases
...and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract. Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “In the context of contracts for construction, the doctrine of substantial performance is applicable only where the contract......
-
Energy Smart Indus., LLC v. Morning View Hotels-Beverly Hills, LLC
...applies only where the promisor's nonperformance was unintentional. Nat'l Constructors, Inc., 681 So.2d at 793 ; Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) ; Lazovitz, Inc. v. Saxon Constr., Inc., 911 F.2d 588, 592 (11th Cir.1990). Here, it is undisputed that ESI voluntaril......
-
Lazovitz, Inc. v. Saxon Const., Inc.
...was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price" minus set-offs); Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1987) (doctrine of substantial performance "is applicable where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadv......
-
M.G.C. Remodeling v. Rhode Island Contractors' Registration and Licensing Bd.
... ... ordinarily constitute a breach of that contract ... See, e.g., Lockhart v. Worsham, ... 508 So.2d 411 (Fla. App. 1987) (installation of kitchen ... cabinets ... ...