Mayfield v. Swafford

• Decision Date: 14 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-83,81-83
• Citation: 435 N.E.2d 953,62 Ill.Dec. 155,106 Ill.App.3d 610
• Parties: , 62 Ill.Dec. 155 Gerald MAYFIELD and Doris Mayfield, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert SWAFFORD, d/b/a Swafford Masonry, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 953

435 N.E.2d 953

106 Ill.App.3d 610, 62 Ill.Dec. 155

Gerald MAYFIELD and Doris Mayfield, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert SWAFFORD, d/b/a Swafford Masonry, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-83.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

May 14, 1982.

Dennis J. Hogan, Murphysboro, for defendant-appellant.

Caldwell, Troutt, Alexander & Quindry, Benton, for plaintiffs-appellees.

JONES, Justice:

After a trial before the circuit court of Franklin County sitting without a jury, judgment was rendered for plaintiffs on Count I of their amended complaint in the amount of.$11,381. That count alleged that the parties had entered into an oral contract for the construction of a swimming pool on plaintiffs' property and that defendant failed to construct the swimming pool in a "good workmanlike manner which will result in the plaintiffs having to repair the pool."

Defendant contends that the pool did not show evidence of being defective at the time of completion and was accepted and used by plaintiffs. Therefore, the pool was not defective.

Evidence was presented that the swimming pool, which was built of concrete blocks at a contract price of $7,000, was not properly constructed and that the results of the improper construction were cracking and movement of some of the blocks, breaks in the pipes between the filter and pool, floating of the vinyl pool liner, cracking of the concrete deck and loss of water.

R. A. Nack, a professional engineer with a Master of Science degree in structural engineering from the University of Illinois, testified as to the measures required in order to correct the improper construction. Those measures were that the concrete deck and the soil surrounding the perimeter of the pool would have to be removed to afford access to the piping system, the concrete block walls would have to be realigned where they had shifted from their proper location and had cracked, the liner would have to be removed in order to be able to work on the concrete blocks, the piping system would have to be replaced with adequate piping, the concrete blocks would have to be reinforced by inserting reinforcing steel into the cores, a perimeter wall of poured concrete or an additional concrete block wall on the exterior of the present concrete block wall would have to be constructed, backfill would have to be properly replaced, the liner, decking and cap would have to be replaced and reseeding done where necessary. Mr. Nack opined that the above work would cost $10,355. He further testified that his fee for inspecting the pool and "subsequent work" was $1,026. Another witness, Bernard Witunski, an installer of swimming pools, testified that plaintiffs' pool should be entirely replaced.

Thus, the cost of correcting the defects in plaintiffs' pool exceeds the contract price of $7,000 by about 50%, and a large part of the cost of correcting these defects will consist of the cost of undoing work alleged to be improperly done.

The ordinary rule applied in cases involving building contracts is that a builder is not required to perform perfectly; rather, he is held only to a duty of substantial performance in a workmanlike manner (Brewer v. Custom Builders Corp. (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 668, 1 Ill.Dec. 377, 356 N.E.2d 565; George Butkovich & Sons, Inc. v. State Bank of St. Charles (1978), 62 Ill.App.3d 810, 20 Ill.Dec. 4, 379 N.E.2d 837). "The purchaser who receives substantial performance of the building contract must pay the price bargained for, less a credit as compensation for deficiencies existing in what he received as compared to what strict performance would have given him. Watson Lumber Co. v. Guennewig (79 Ill.App.2d 377, 226 N.E.2d 270); Broncata v. Timbercrest Estates, Inc., 100 Ill.App.2d 49, 241 N.E.2d 569." (Brewer v. Custom Builders Corp. (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 668, 673, 1 Ill.Dec. 377, 382, 356 N.E.2d 565, 570.) Accordingly, failure to perform in a workmanlike manner constitutes a breach of contract. Upon consideration of the record before us we have determined that the conclusion of the trial court that the work of constructing the pool was not done in a workmanlike manner was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. Gaffney v. McCarron (1977), 45 Ill.App.3d 944, 4 Ill.Dec. 572, 360 N.E.2d 508. The pool was constructed in the spring of 1977, and the case was tried in the fall of 1980. Plaintiffs testified that some of the defects became apparent by the summer of 1977. Other defects were noticeable in subsequent years and became progressively worse, such as the cracking and shifting of the concrete blocks. Evidence was presented that showed that substandard workmanship caused the defects and that these defects were indeed substantial. It is no bar to the action that plaintiffs did not discover the defects until some time after the completion of construction. See Annot., 1 A.L.R.3d 870 (1965).

Defendant argues that he is entitled to a set-off against the judgment on the basis of plaintiffs' testimony that their family made substantial use of the pool during the summers of 1977 and 1978 and some use of the pool in 1979. This issue, however, was not raised by the defendant in the pleadings. Although there was testimony that plaintiffs used the pool to some degree for three years, a set-off for defendant cannot rest upon such a defense where it was not pleaded. To decide otherwise would deprive plaintiffs of the right to notice and opportunity to defend against the issues they must meet. Kusy v. Johnson (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 763, 354 N.E.2d 480.

Defendant contends that the damages awarded are excessive. Examination of the record discloses that the question of the proper measure of damages was given much consideration by the trial court and the parties. It was the plaintiffs' position that the measure of damages should be either the cost of repair of the defects in the pool or the difference in market value occasioned by the construction of a defective pool. The court held that if a rule based upon diminution in value was to be applied that diminution would have to be shown by a consideration of the entire tract of real estate involved, lot, house and pool, since the pool was an unseverable part of the real estate. The plaintiffs sought to show, by witness Wills, a real estate appraiser, that diminution in value by reason of a defective pool would be shown by comparison of the appraised value of the entirety of the tract as improved with a good pool with the value of the tract as improved with a defective pool. Plaintiffs suggested that the amount of damages derived by such a method would be the same as the amount of damages derived by following the cost-of-repair rule. But, since witness Wills had not made an inspection and appraisal of the subject real estate with its pool, he was not permitted to testify; his testimony would merely have constituted advice to the court upon the proper rule of law to be followed in the case and would not be evidence.

The plaintiff also, at one point, sought to introduce evidence as to the cost of replacing the pool. This evidence was disallowed by the trial court when there was no showing that the replacement pool would be comparable to the defective pool.

It is defendant's position that the proper measure of damages would be the difference between "the value of the pool as it is now and the value of the pool, had it been properly constructed."

At the close of all the evidence the court stated that it would take the matter under advisement to examine the case in at least two unnamed particulars. When its decision was rendered, it was in the form of a judgment in which no findings were made regarding the measure of damages applied. We are unable to find an expression in so many words of the rule regarding the measure of damages that was adopted by the trial court. We think it evident from the amount of the judgment, however, that the damages awarded represented the cost of repairs necessary to restore the pool.

We have noted in the record that the parties and the court considered the case of Brewer v. Custom Builders Corp. in their discussions of the proper measure of damages to be applied to the case. Since the trial of this case, two...