Marcus v. Lee S. Wilbur & Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1991 |
| Parties | Leon C. MARCUS v. LEE S. WILBUR & CO. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Timothy C. Woodcock (orally), Mitchell & Stearns, Bangor, for plaintiff.
Nathan Dane, III (orally), Bangor, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J. and, ROBERTS, WATHEN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.
Plaintiff Leon Marcus appeals the judgment for defendant boatyard Lee S. Wilbur & Co. entered in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Silsby, J.) on a boat repair contract breach claim and counterclaim following a non-jury trial. Plaintiff argues that defendant breached the contract term that required defendant to keep plaintiff informed of cost changes and the court erred in not considering this specific claim. Plaintiff also contends that there was no credible evidence on the record to support the court's finding that defendant performed its duty in a workmanlike manner and did not overcharge. Finding no prejudicial error and finding credible evidence to support the decision of the court, we affirm.
Plaintiff owned the Leon Charles, a 44-foot sailboat. Plaintiff asked defendant, to inspect the boat and submit a cost estimate of repairs. In a letter, plaintiff listed the boat repairs he wanted made. The last paragraph of the letter told defendant that plaintiff expected to be informed of estimate fluctuations. Defendant knew that it was to keep plaintiff up to date on the cost. Plaintiff testified that the first oral estimate was $18,000. The first written estimate was $20,709.23, "shipping and storage extra," quoted to plaintiff in a letter from defendant. Plaintiff agreed to this amount. At the bottom of this letter either plaintiff or his agent had made the handwritten notation "get started." Work on the boat began in January, 1985. On February 22, 1985, defendant sent a statement to plaintiff indicating that the work completed at that time totalled approximately $16,000. Soon after this statement, defendant sent plaintiff a revised estimate of $37,464.48 with a list of items that were not included in this estimate. Plaintiff wrote a scathing letter to defendant on March 21, 1985 objecting to the revised estimate. At the end of this letter, plaintiff said that he hoped to decide the issues in a meeting with defendant on the following Monday. Plaintiff testified that they met, discussed the estimate, and he authorized defendant to continue to work on the boat. Defendant testified that it was its understanding at that time that it was to go ahead with the repairs. Between March and June, there were no written communications between the parties but both testified to numerous verbal communications. In June, 1985, plaintiff went to the boatyard and received the bill, including the amounts for services specifically not included in the February estimate. The total amount was $40,113.59, approximately $12,000 of which had been paid. Defendant would not let plaintiff have the boat unless he paid $25,000. Plaintiff paid, leaving a balance of approximately $2,500. A July bill showed an additional $8,461, representing charges incurred by plaintiff from June through July. Plaintiff made at least one more payment. The last bill, dated October 31, 1985, showed a balance due defendant from plaintiff of $9,160.41. Plaintiff noticed several problems with the boat immediately after he took possession and during the next two summers.
In his complaint, plaintiff claimed that the work of defendant was done in a negligent and unworkmanlike manner. During the trial, plaintiff argued that defendant had breached the contract provision to keep plaintiff informed of changes in the estimates. Defendant denied any breach and filed a counterclaim for the amount outstanding on the boat repair bill plus interest. A non-jury trial was held. Four persons testified: plaintiff, the man who bought the boat from plaintiff and who was offered by plaintiff as an expert in yacht design and boatyard operation, the owner of the boatyard, and the boatyard's service manager. Reciting some of the facts it found, the court ordered judgment for defendant on the claim and the counterclaim. Plaintiff made a general motion for findings of facts and conclusions of law. It was denied because the court felt that the facts noted in its opinion were adequate to support the judgment. Plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff contends that a term of the contract was that defendant keep plaintiff informed of fluctuations in the cost estimates as work proceeded on his boat and defendant breached that term. He argues further because the court failed to mention this provision and its alleged breach in its order, it did not consider it and this failure was error.
In his closing argument, plaintiff argued for the first time that defendant had breached its duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Winters
...the work in a good and workmanlike manner and that it will be free from defects in workmanship or materials.”); Marcus v. Lee S. Wilbur & Co., 588 A.2d 757, 759 (Me.1991) ( “One of the implied terms of every repair contract is an undertaking to perform the work in a reasonably skillful and ......
-
Marston v. Newavom
...was not raised by defendants in the Superior Court and therefore was not preserved for appellate review. See Marcus v. Lee S. Wilbur & Co., 588 A.2d 757, 758-59 (Me.1991). Disregarding the standard of review, however, defendants do not prevail. Contrary to defendants' allegations, the trial......
-
VanVoorhees v. Dodge
...716 (Me.1976). Similarly, the question of whether there has been a breach of contract is a question of fact. See Marcus v. Lee S. Wilbur & Co., 588 A.2d 757, 759 (Me.1991). We will not set aside the factual findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous. Barker v. St. Mary's ......
-
Tardif v. Cutchin
...weight and significance of any other evidence." Tonge v. Waterville Realty Corp., 448 A.2d 902, 905 (Me.1982); see Marcus v. Lee S. Wilbur & Co., 588 A.2d 757 (Me.1991). Further, the father's efforts to obscure his income, as found by the court, precludes us from holding that a plain and un......