Pitocco v. Landi
| Decision Date | 18 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10079,10080,s. 10079 |
| Citation | 92 R.I. 127,167 A.2d 134 |
| Parties | Ralph PITOCCO et al. v. James LANDI, d.b.a. Douglas Construction Company. James LANDI d.b.a. Douglas Construction Company. v. Ralph PITOCCO et al. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Ralph Rotondo, Providence, for owners Ralph Pitocco et al.
John Quattrocchi, Jr., Providence, for contractors James Landi.
These are two actions in assumpsit for breach of a building contract. Ralph Pitocco, Joseph Gagliardi and Frank DiGuiseppe, hereinafter referred to as the owners, commenced their suit by a writ of attachment dated October 17, 1956 against James Landi d. b. a. Douglas Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the contractor. By a writ of attachment dated November 6, 1956, the contractor brought a cross action against the owners and Angelo Tucci. The cases were consolidated for trial before a superior court justice sitting with a jury and resulted in verdicts of nominal damages for the owners and substantial damages for the contractor.
Thereafter the trial justice granted the owners' motion for a new trial in each case. They are before us on the contractor's bills of exceptions to the granting of such motions and to certain other rulings.
The owners commenced a second action against the contractor by a writ of attachment dated February 28, 1957. The declaration in this second suit alleged that the owners, because of the contractor's breach, were required to expend a greater sum than the contract price in order to complete the construction and repair defective work. By agreement between the parties this declaration was made a third count in the owners' original declaration.
It appears from the record that some time early in July 1956, the owners and the contractor entered into an oral agreement for the construction of a commercial building on Reservoir avenue in the city of Cranston. All parties agree that the original site was abandoned in favor of another and that the initial plans were modified to reduce the estimated cost from $26,500 to an agreed consideration of $22,500. It was also agreed that the owners would pay an additional $1,000 for alterations in the foundation.
It is undisputed that the work began on July 24, 1956 and continued until about the second week in September in that year. The parties agree that the contractor was paid a total of $8,000 for work on the building. This amount was received by the contractor in three payments; namely, $1,000 on August 24, a second check for $6,000 on August 29, and a third check for $1,000 on September 6, 1956. All other material details of the negotiations and progress of the work are in sharp conflict.
The owners all testified to the effect that the contractor failed to provide them with a written contract as promised, to carry workmen's compensation insurance for his employees, to provide a foundation in accordance with the plans, and that he abandoned the job without justification. It was also their testimony that at a conference held in the contractor's home after work on the building had ceased, the contractor stated that he wanted a total of $30,000 for the job or he would not complete it.
The testimony of the owners was corroborated in part by Angelo Tucci whom the contractor had joined as a defendant in his suit against them. Several other witnesses furnished testimony tending to corroborate that of the owners.
The contractors testified he advised the owners there would be additional charges which they agreed to pay; contradicted the owners' testimony on insurance; and stated that a copy of the specifications, which constituted the contract, were to have been furnished to him by the owners but never were. It is his testimony that he was to have been paid $8,500 plus an additional $1,000 when the foundation was completed, and the balance in two equal payments. The first of these payments was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial