Sabo v. Strolis
| Decision Date | 27 June 1961 |
| Citation | 172 A.2d 609,148 Conn. 504 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | James SABO v. Alfred M. STROLIS et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
George J. Finn, Shelton, for appellants (defendants).
Cleaveland J. Rice, Jr., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Charles M. Lyman, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and BORDON, JJ.
On April 12, 1951, the plaintiff and the defendant Alfred M. Strolis entered into a contract whereby Alfred agreed to construct a house for the plaintiff for $14,000 and to complete it by March 1, 1952. The date of completion was extended by the plaintiff until March 31, 1952. On April 1, 1952, the house not being completed, Alfred left the job at the plaintiff's request and the parties agreed, with the assistance of an arbitrator selected by both parties, to engage another contractor to complete the work. The cost of completion was $3,722, which sum, when added to the $11,105 paid Alfred while he was on the job, resulted in the expenditure of $827 in excess of the contract price. The court found the issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment for him to recover damages of $3,722. The defendants have appealed from the judgment. Josephine Strolis was named as a defendant under the second count of the complaint as obligor on a performance bond in the sum of $5,000 guaranteeing compliance with the contract by Alfred, but the finding does not support a judgment against her.
According to the finding, which is not subject to correction, the judgment should have been for $827 instead of $3,722, as erroneously entered by the court. The three assignments of error raise only one issue, namely, whether an obviously erroneous judgment can be corrected to conform to the finding of the trial court.
Alfred defaulted in the performance of his contract and is liable in damages to the plaintiff. The latter is entitled to recover that compensation which will leave him as well off as he would have been had there been full performance. Leventhal v. Town of Stratford, 121 Conn. 290, 299, 184 A. 587; Frederick Raff Co. v. Murphy, 110 Conn. 234, 242, 147 A. 709; Lee v. Harris, 85 Conn. 212, 214, 82 A. 186. The plaintiff takes the untenable position that the judgment, as entered, should stand, even though it exceeds the proven damages and is in excess of the amount found by the court. Under the finding, the judgment should have been for $827 with interest from the date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Huntington Co.
...to breach of contract claims where the partial performance of one party caused the other party specific damages; Sabo v. Strolis, 148 Conn. 504, 172 A.2d 609 (1961); or to debts that had matured without payment; see Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, supra, 235 Conn. ......
-
Criscuolo v. Mauro Motors, Inc.
...facts were appropriately determined. We may modify the amount of damages where it exceeds the amount proven. See Sabo v. Strolis, 148 Conn. 504, 506, 172 A.2d 609 (1961). We can do so especially where it can be done without interfering with settled principles of law, and the record contains......
-
Franklin Research & Develop. Corp. v. Swift Elec. Sup. Co.
...to interest at 6% per year from the date of the defendant's breach of contract, March 7, 1960. C.G.S.A. § 37-3; Sabo v. Strolis, 148 Conn. 504, 172 A.2d 609 (1961). Under New York law the plaintiff would likewise be entitled to the same interest. N.Y.Civ.Prac.Act 480, N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law & Rul......
-
Rizzo Construction Pool Co. v. Riefler, 391537 (Conn. Super. 12/3/2003)
...v. Gould, 219 Conn. 151, 157-58, 592 A.2d 378 (1991) (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted); see Sabo v. Strolls, 148 Conn. 504, 506, 172 A.2d 609 (1961) (limiting owner's damages for builder's breach by default in performance to cost of completion less outstanding balance of......