Reynolds v. Armstead
| Decision Date | 22 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 23268,23268 |
| Citation | 443 P.2d 990,166 Colo. 372 |
| Parties | Merrill REYNOLDS and Bernarr G. Roper, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Richard L. ARMSTEAD, d/b/a Armstead Masonry Company, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Klauber, Kayne & Kerner, Boulder, for plaintiffs in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Richard L. Armstead, doing business as Armstead Masonry Company, brought this action on account against the plaintiff in error herein, Bernarr G. Roper. The Boulder County district court entered an amended judgment for $267.62 in Armstead's favor, from which Roper brings the present writ of error.
The record shows, and the district court accordingly found, that the parties had entered into an oral contract whereby Roper agreed to pay $535.25 for Armstead's construction of a brick veneer as an addition to Roper's house. Armstead expressly promised to use new brick matching as closely as possible the color and appearance of Roper's existing brickwork. The district court found that Armstead breached the oral contract by failing to use brick which reasonably conformed to Roper's brickwork, although Armstead's veneer was in all other respects of sound construction. The judgment of the district court originally awarded Armstead the contract price of $535.25, less damages of $80 accruing to Roper by reason of Armstead's breach. On Roper's motion for new trial, however, the court heard further testimony of damages resulting from Armstead's failure to perform, reassessed Roper's damages at $267.63, and entered an amended judgment in Armstead's favor for $267.62--that is, the contract price of $535.25 less damages of $267.63.
This court has repeatedly held that a contractor may recover the agreed price for substantial performance of his contract, subject to a deduction for damages for the contractor's failure to adhere to the contract in minor details. See Campbell v. Koin, 154 Colo. 425, 391 P.2d 365; Zambakian v. Leson, 77 Colo. 183, 234 P. 1065; Louthan v. Carson, 63 Colo. 473, 168 P. 656; Morris v. Hokosona, 26 Colo.App. 251, 143 P. 826.
The question presented here, however, is whether as a matter of law Armstead substantially performed his contract with Roper, and therefore became entitled to a recovery on the contract. Our authorities judiciously decline to state a formula determining with mathematical certainty what constitutes substantial performance, but instead rely upon the application of general principles. Thus, in Morris v. Hokosona, supra, we stated:
'* * * substantial performance permitting a recovery on the contract means an attempt in good faith to strictly and fully perform and is not satisfied unless there has been only slight or inadvertent omissions or departures which have not affected the value of the structure and which are capable of remedy and for which the employer may be compensated by a reduction of the contract price.'
And in Newcomb v. Schaeffler, 131 Colo. 56, 279 P.2d 409:
'Substantial compliance with reference to contracts, means that although the conditions of the contract have been deviated from in trifling particulars not materially detracting from the benefit the other party would derive from a literal performance, he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc.
...¶ 44 Moreover, use of “substantial” disfavors Shaw's view of improvement to mean the project as a whole. See Reynolds v. Armstead, 166 Colo. 372, 375, 443 P.2d 990, 991 (1968) (“substantial performance” of a contract entails “an attempt in good faith to strictly and fully perform ... [with]......
-
Houy v. Davis Oil Co., 23450
...the contract according to its exact letter. See Little Thompson Water Ass'n v. Strawn, Colo., 466 P.2d 915 (1970); Reynolds v. Armstead, 166 Colo. 372, 443 P.2d 990 (1968); Campbell v. Koin, 154 Colo. 425, 391 P.2d 365 (1964); Zambakian v. Leson, 77 Colo. 183, 234 P. 1065 (1925); Louthan v.......
-
Little Thompson Water Ass'n v. Strawn
...were claimed owing to it. This Court has considered the doctrine of substantial performance in many cases, among which are: Reynolds v. Armstead, Colo., 443 P.2d 990; Newcomb v. Schaeffler, 131 Colo. 56, 279 P.2d 409; Zambakian v. Leson, 79 Colo. 350, 246 P. 268; Ross Mining & Mill. Co. v. ......
-
Interbank Inv. v. Vail Valley Consol. Water
...determined that a breach is material, it follows that substantial performance has not been rendered."). See also Reynolds v. Armstead, 166 Colo. 372, 443 P.2d 990 (1968). In deciding whether a breach is material, the extent to which an injured party would still obtain substantial benefit fr......
-
Chapter 20 - § 20.2 • THEORIES OF RECOVERY
...Cox v. Fremont County Pub. Bldg. Auth., 415 F.2d 882 (10th Cir. 1969); Denver Ventures, Inc., 754 P.2d 785.[77] Reynolds v. Armstead, 443 P.2d 990 (Colo. 1968) (en banc).[78] Newcomb v. Schaeffler, 279 P.2d 409 (Colo. 1955).[79] A.A. & E.B. Jones Co., 530 P.2d at 982 (where a contractor pro......
-
Chapter 20 - § 20.1 • GENERAL PRINCIPLES
...v. Nissen, 199 P.2d 886 (Colo. 1948); cf. Charles v. E. F. Hallack Lumber & Mfg. Co., 43 P. 548 (Colo. 1896).[28] Reynolds v. Armstead, 443 P.2d 990 (Colo. 1968) (en banc).[29] Morris v. Hokosona, 143 P. 826 (Colo. App. 1914), followed by Harrison Constr. Co. v. Nissen, 199 P.2d 886 (Colo. ......